


FT riEPDE 
GenCol1 


mental Protection 


TMM POWT 


M i ni|| ing Water ^ 

IHIfttructure Needs Survey 
and Assessment 


Fourth Report to Congress 














Cover photos (clockwise from top right): Girl in pool, www.iStockphoto.com; Water tower, www.iStockphoto.com; Desolation Wilderness, 
California, Amy Draut; Flocculators in a Butte, Montana treatment facility, Montana Department of Environmental Quality; Upper Rogue River, 
Oregon, Amy Draut; Man with daughter at drinking fountain, www.iStockphoto.com; Inside the new pipe gallery at the Neuse Regional Water 
and Sewer Authority in North Carolina, Jim McRight, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; Water utility worker, www. 
iStockphoto.com; Distribution main at the construction site of a new treatment plant In Helena, Montana, City of Helena; Girl drinking water, 
Sandie Koenig; Construction at a water treatment facility in Corsicana, Texas, Texas Water Development Board; Quabbin Reservoir, Massachusetts, 
Charles Hernick 





Office of Water (4606M) 
EPA 816-R-09-001 
February 2009 
www.epa.gov/safewater 


Drinking Water 
Infrastructure Needs Survey an 

Assessment 

Fourth Report to Congress 



U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
Office of Water 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 
Drinking Water Protection Division 
Washington, D.C. 20460 



































\ 


Contents 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.i 

CHAPTER 1: FINDINGS - NATIONAL NEED.I 

2007 Total National Need.1 

2007 Total National Need Compared to EPA’s Previous Assessments.3 

Total National Need by Project Type.5 

Transmission and Distribution Needs .6 

Treatment Needs .7 

Source Needs .7 

Storage Needs.8 

Other Needs .8 

Need by System Size.9 

Needs Associated with SDWA Regulations.10 

Existing Regulations.10 

Proposed or Recently Promulgated Regulatory Needs.11 

Security Needs.13 

American Indian and Alaskan Native Village Water System Needs .14 

CHAPTER 2; FINDINGS - STATE NEED.17 

State-Specific Needs .17 

Changes in State-Specific Need through Assessment Cycles.22 

Continuing Evolution of the DWINSA.24 

Key Observations on Each Assessment’s Approach.25 

Unique Needs of Water Systems in U.S. Territories.26 

APPENDIX A - SURVEY METHODS.29 

APPENDIX B - DATA COLLECTION.39 

APPENDIX C - POLICIES.45 

APPENDIX D - ACCURACY, PRECISION, AND UNCERTAINTY.53 

APPENDIX E - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR SYSTEMS SERVING 10,000 AND 

FEWER PERSONS.57 

GLOSSARY.61 




































Exhibits 


Exhibit ES.l: DWINSA Comparison of 20-Year National Need .i 

Exhibit 1.1: Total National 20-Year Need.1 

Exhibit 1.2: Total National 20-Year Need Comparison to Previous DWINSA Findings .3 

Exhibit 1.3: Total 20-Year Need Comparison to Other Assessments.4 

Exhibit 1.4: Total 20-Year Need by Project Type.:.5 

Exhibit 1.5: Total 20-Year Need by System Size and Type and Project Type.5 

Exhibit 1.6: Community Water System 20-Year Need by Size and Population.9 

Exhibit 1.7: Total Regulatory vs. Non-Regulatory 20-Year Need.10 

Exhibit 1.8: Total 20-Year National Regulatory Need.10 

Exhibit 1.9: Total National 20-Year Need for Proposed and Recently Promulgated Regulations.12 

Exhibit 1.10: Total National 20-Year Security Needs.!.13 

Exhibit 1.11: Total 20-Year American Indian and Alaskan Native Village Water System Need 

by Project Type.14 

Exhibit 1.12: 20-Year American Indian and Alaskan Native Village Water System Need 

by EPA Region .15 

Exhibit 2.1: State 20-Year Need Reported by Project Type.18 

Exhibit 2.2: State 20-Year Need Reported by System Size.19 

Exhibit 2.3: Overview of 20-Year Need by State.20 

Exhibit 2.4: State 20-Year Need Reported for Partially Surveyed States.21 

Exhibit 2.5: Historic State Need Reported for Each DWINSA.23 

Exhibit 2.6: 20-Year Need Reported by U.S. Territories.26 

Exhibit A. 1: Community Water System Stratification for the 2007 Assessment.31 

Exhibit A.2: Medium and Large Community Water System Sample Size.32 

Exhibit A.3: Small Community Water System Sample Size.34 

Exhibit B.l: DWINSA Allowable and Unallowable Projects.40 

Exhibit E.l: 2007 State Need Reported by Project Type for CWSs Serving a Population of 
10,000 and Fewer 


58 



































r 


Acknowledgments 


Many dedicated individuals contributed to the 2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. We 
would like to thank the state and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Needs Assessment coordinators and 
their supporting staffs and contractors for their active participation and continuing interest in the project. Not listed 
here are the operators and managers of the approximately 3,250 systems who spent their valuable time completing the 
questionnaires sent to them. We thank them for their assistance. 


( Mark Spinale - U.S. EPA Region 1 
Theodore Dunn - Connecticut 
I Patrick Rogers - Massachusetts 

! Roger Crouse - Maine 

Richard Skarinka - New Hampshire 
Gary Chobanian - Rhode Island 
I Eric Blatt - Vermont 


Ray Kvalheim - U.S. EPA Region 2, U.S. Virgin Islands 

( Roger Tsao, Todd Taylor - New Jersey 
Steve Marshall, Dave Phillips - New York 
Adamaris Quinones - Puerto Rico 

S Ken Pantuck - U.S. EPA Region 3 
■ Jennifer Bruneau - District of Columbia 
I John Degour - Delaware 
Chris Carski - Maryland 
V , Hardik Patel - Pennsylvania 
I ‘ '■ Dale Kitchen, Jeremy Hull - Virginia 
11' Bob Decrease - West Virginia 





i 

i 


Dale Froneberger - U.S. EPA Region 4 

Chris Strickland - Alabama 

Isaac Santos, Paul Brandi, Craig Diltz - Florida 

Chris Smith - Georgia 

Sarah Tucker - Kentucky 

Sheila Williams, William Moody - Mississippi 

Sid Harrell, Vince Tomaino - North Carolina 

Sheila Watts - South Carolina 

Khaldoun Kailani - Tennessee 


William Tansey - U.S. EPA Region 5 

Dave McMillan - Illinois 

Sarah Hudson - Indiana 

Richard Benzie - Michigan 

Lucas Martin - Minnesota 

Stacy Barna - Ohio 

James Witthuhn - Wisconsin 


Dave Reazin - U.S. EPA Region 6 
Raymond Thompson - Arkansas 
Julie Comeaux - Louisiana 
Mary Day - New Mexico 
Steven Hoffman - Oklahoma 
Fawn Pruet, Don Thompson - Texas 

Rao Surampalli - U.S. EPA Region 7 
Roy Ney, Jennifer Bunton - Iowa 
William Carr - Kansas 
Steve Jones - Missouri 
Steve McNulty - Nebraska 

Brian Friel - U.S. EPA Region 8 
John Payne - Colorado 
Marc Golz - Montana 
Chuck Abel - North Dakota 
Jim Anderson - South Dakota 
Julie Cobleigh - Utah 

Jose Caratini, Barry Pollock - U.S. EPA Region 9, U.S. Territories 

Jonathan Bernreuter - Arizona 

Michael Ngai, Dat Tran - California 

Stuart Yamada - Hawaii 

Adele Basham - Nevada 

Richard Green - U.S. EPA Region 10 
Christopher Clark - Alaska 
Carol Garrison - Idaho 
George Waun - Oregon 
Peter Beaton - Washington 

U.S. EPA Office of Water 

Robert Barles - Needs Assessment Coordinator 

Peter Shanaghan - DWSRF Team Leader 

Charles Job - Drinking Water Infrastructure Branch Chief 

The Cadmus Group, Inc. - Prime Contractor 












City of Helena, Montana 


The base of a 1.5 million gallon storage tank under construction in Helena, Montana. 


} 


1 


►1 

i 

















Executive Summary 


Total National Need 


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) fourth 
national assessment of public water system infrastructure needs 
shows a total twenty-year capital improvement need of $334.8 
billion. This estimate represents infrastructure projects necessary 
from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2026, for water 
systems to continue to provide safe drinking water to the public. 

The national total comprises the infrastructure investment needs 
of the nation’s approximately 52,000 community water systems 
and 21,400 not-for-profit noncommunity water systems, 

including the needs of American Indian and Alaskan Native Village water systems, and the costs associated 
with proposed and recently promulgated regulations. The findings are based on the 2007 Drinking Water 
Needs Survey and Assessment (DWINSA or Assessment) which relied primarily on a statistical survey of 
public water systems (approximately 3,250 responses). 


$334.8 Billion is Needed 

The nation’s drinking water utilities need $334.8 
billion in infrastructure investments over the next 
20 years for thousands of miles of pipe as well 
as thousands of treatment plants, storage tanks, 
and other key assets to ensure the public health 
and economic well-being of our cities, towns, and 
communities. 


The estimate covers infrastructure needs that are 
eligible for, but not necessarily financed by. Drinking 
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) monies (note- 
DWSRF is designed to supplement, not replace, 
investment funding by states and localities as well as 
rate payers). Projects eligible for DWSRF funding 
include the installation of new infrastructure and the 
rehabilitation, expansion, or replacement of existing 
infrastructure. Projects may be needed because existing 
infrastructure is deteriorated or undersized, or to 
ensure compliance with regulations. Cost estimates 
assume comprehensive construction costs including 
engineering and design, purchase of raw materials and equipment, construction and installation labor, and 
final inspection. 

EPA recognizes that there are legitimate and significant water system needs that are not eligible for DWSRF 
funding, such as raw water dams and reservoirs, projects related primarily to population growth, and water 
system operation and maintenance costs. However, because the Assessment is directly associated with the 
allocation of DWSRF capitalization grants, needs ineligible £ 5 ^ j. DWINSA Comparison of 

for DWSRF funding are not included in the estimate. 20-Year National Need 

i 

j National Need Compared to Previous 
I Needs Assessments 

I 

i EPA conducted three previous Assessments, in 1995, 1999, 

1 and 2003. Exhibit ES. 1, which adjusts the findings to 2007 

I dollars, shows the 2007 Assessments total national need 


Year 

1995 

1999 

2003 

2007 

National 

Need 

$200.4 

$198.2 

$331.4 

$334.8 


The national 20-year need estimate is reported in billions of 
January 2007 dollars. 


Authority, Purpose, and History 

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 
mandated that EPA conduct an assessment of the 
nation’s public water systems’ infrastructure needs 
every 4 years, and use the findings to allocate 
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) 
capitalization grants to states. The DWSRF was 
established to help public water systems obtain 
financing for improvements necessary to protect 
public health and comply with drinking water 
regulations. From 1997 to 2007, states loaned 
$12.6 billion to water systems for 5,550 projects. 


I 



















2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


to be comparable to the 2003 estimate, continuing the success of better capturing longer term needs that 
were underreported in the two earlier surveys. While the 2003 and 2007 efforts share a similar statistical 
approach and total national need findings, the 2007 Assessment employed specific efforts to greatly improve 
the consistency of methods for estimating needs across the states and water systems. 

Individual State Need 

The 2007 Assessment shows significant changes in some states’ needs from previous Assessments. These 
changes will result in modifications to individual states’ DWSRF allotments. While shifts in states’ needs can 
be attributed to expected changes in the status of projects from one survey to the next, some of the shifts in 
the 2007 findings are due to this Assessment’s emphasis on improving method consistency across states and 
water systems. 

Regulatory Need 

The findings of the 2007 Assessment indicate that the need associated directly with Safe Drinking Water Act 
(SDWA) regulations remains a small percentage, 16 percent, of the total national need. Most water system 
needs are not directly related to violations of, or compliance with, SDWA regulations. Most needs are ongoing 
investments that systems must make to continue delivering safe drinking water to their customers. 

Small System Need 

For the 2007 Assessment, EPA sent water system professionals to 600 randomly selected small systems to collect 
information about their needs. Small systems were defined as serving 3,300 persons or fewer. Similar field 
surveys of small water systems were conducted for the 1995 and 1999 Assessments, but the 2003 Assessment 
relied on the results of the 1999 survey adjusted to 2003 dollars. The new field survey of small systems allowed 
for the application of the cost models used to estimate needs of medium and large systems, providing a more 
consistent approach across all system sizes. The 2007 results show a small systems need of $59.4 billion, or 18 
percent of the total national need, a result similar to that of the previous filed survey of these systems. 

Needs of American Indian and Alaskan Native Village Water Systems 

The needs of water systems serving American Indians and Alaskan Native Villages are a small percentage of 
the nation’s total need; however, they represent a high need per household. Many water systems for American 
Indian tribes and Alaskan Native Villages are located in remote rural areas or in areas with permafrost. These 
conditions present special challenges for providing drinking water service. The findings presented in this report 
are based on an in-depth survey of these systems conducted in 1999 adjusted to 2007 dollars. 

Water Industry Capital Investment Planning and Documentation of Needs 

Systems submitted a variety of planning documents and excerpts of documents in support of projects reported 
for the 2007 Assessment. These documents made clear that as our nation’s infrastructure continues to age and 
deteriorate, many water systems are using asset management strategies to better understand and address their 
infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement challenges. However, for many other systems, the information 
and documentation provided indicates that a significant gap still exists between information about their 
inventory of infrastructure and their knowledge of that infrastructure’s condition or remaining useful life. 



i‘ * ►-'I’w:i*-4.>■• .' _ ^ t* '' «<„ -- - , 


t* = ■ 

■* *" I# ^ "* * 


.*> 


j- • 

^ f-^. 



'U i:n4i^‘ ■ •- 

"* •.*■*'•, *-• 

‘ ’. • '-'’ '( ■ '- % ^ 


■-*- * 


-* . _ —^ . 


a 




>.: 


^ LV 


'.•<* -; 


3 ' \-^ 


■ ' %- '/■-< >■ 


■5l.<i - • • • - 


• f>' 


' ‘ ^ Jt'■'►VJFTf —^ ' 

-t ' j ^ ■> . • -■ . ' -■- 

^ ^'- r -<-\ 4 -^ '• ■ > 'i) ■' J:' . ‘'V 

V 


Vn ;-iv.’’ 





. I' 


'■ , .- - 

, *“'" • cr* -•■ ’•■^J " 

" "t- *■’<' ~~'S<' 

• L. * • • ^ *** * ■ v- ■ 


- ■ '. -V^ ■£% 





*■ •mr ‘iT'T'■” - ’-•»': 

• *■ . k 


't.' 


*1* 


^ " '. * •<• ' * «*» - 

.'s'>vflli : - /a 

• f •■ V, • ^ .A '» 


,, V 


•:\y 


‘i '■u*- -' 

/r. .-..■^;„',»J^'.^■■t;<- 


•i 'k-H;*; 

^ <m • 


t -A: ■- V, -iL. a; ' 

'■ ■ ''5^- ' ■ 

' ^ . * • ■. X M-** • 4 

"■ ,. - ,1-^ . t ■ 


•• 


' ■” 

"w 



. * . ,* .'^ - ■^■^C'irt’ .j •:'■• _-l»= ^ ._ 

■ *.'% ■ •' * . * f. t * >. • « ^4.1_..^«.i 


■*'’I'm. '\tr’ 





V .1: . ^ ' • ‘'rxj'-.w£*-v^» ';t.' 

: “.' ---■-S'- -IV 

-- • _ k- . J". . <"• ■ * /T 'I - .’ 



- J» 


Jini./- C-r -T ' 








2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 



Denver Water 


A 40-by-60-foot sinkhole on Interstate 25 outside of Denver, Colorado formed after a water main 
ruptured. The rupture was caused by an emergency pump shutoff that increased pressure from 
180 psi to 300 psi. The break was repaired within 72 hours. 






Chapter 1: Findings - Nationai Need 


2007 Totai Nationai Need 


Exhibit 1.1: Total National 20-Year Need 


The 20-year national infrastructure need estimated by the 
2007 Assessment is $334.8 billion. The breakout of the 
national need by system size and type is presented in Exhibit 

1 . 1 . 

The results were derived from the responses to a probability 
sample of approximately 3,250 community water systems' 
(CWSs). The results for the not-for-profit noncommunity 
water systems^ (NPNCWSs) and American Indian and 
Alaskan Native Village water systems were extrapolated from 
a similar assessment conducted in 1999. The total national 
need also includes the costs associated with meeting recently 
proposed or promulgated regulations that are too new to be a 
consideration in water systems’ investment plans; those costs 
are derived from EPA’s economic analyses (EAs) supporting 
each regulation. 

The need reported in the Assessment includes projects for 
expanding, replacing, or rehabilitating existing infrastructure. 


(in billions of January 2007 dollars) 


System Size and Type 

Need 

Large Community Water Systems* 

(serving over 100,000 persons) 

$116.3 

Medium Community Water Systems* 

(serving 3,301-100,000 persons) 

$145.1 

Small Community Water Systems 
(serving 3,300 and fewer persons) 

$59.4 

Not-for-Profit Noncommunity Water Systems^ 

$4.1 

Total State Need 

$324.9 

American Indian and Alaskan Native Village 
Water Systems^ 

$2.9 

Costs Associated with Proposed and Recently 
Promulgated Regulations 

$7.0 

Total National Need 

$334.8 

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. 

* “Large” and “medium” systems are defined differently for this 
Assessment than previous Assessments. See Appendix A for 
more information. 

t Based on 1999 Assessment findings adjusted to 2007 
dollars. 



Montana Departnnent of Environmental Quality 


Construction at the Fort Peck-Dry Prairie Regional Water System in northwest Montana. 

1 A community water system is a public water system that serves at least 15 connections used by year-round residents or 
that regularly serves at least 25 residents year-round. Cities, towns, and small communities such as retirement homes are 
examples of community water systems. 

2 A noncommunity water system is a public water system that is not a community water system and that serves a 
nonresidential population of at least 25 individuals daily for at least 60 days of the year. Schools and churches are examples 
of noncommuniry water systems. 


1 





























2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


It also includes projects to construct new infrastructure in order to preserve the physical 
integrity of water systems and to convey drinking water to existing residential, commercial, 
and industrial customers. Projects vary greatly in scale, complexity, and cost—from 
rehabilitating a small storage tank, to replacing an entire treatment plant, to constructing a 
high-capacity pipeline. 

The results presented in this report will determine the allocation of DWSRF capitalization 
grants for federal fiscal years 2010 through 2013. Therefore, the need does not include 
projects that are ineligible for DWSRF funding. A summary of the types of projects included 
in the Assessment, as well as specific unallowable projects, is presented in Appendix B. 
EPA recognizes that projects not eligible for DWSRF funding can be significant, if not 
critical, water system needs, but they are outside the scope of this Assessment. In addition, 
the Assessment does not seek to capture information on the financing alternatives being 
pursued or considered by systems for individual projects. The DWSRF is in fact intended as 
a supplement to, not a replacement for funding by states, localities, and rate payers. 

The approach and methodologies for discerning needs are further detailed in Appendix A. 
The specific project allowability criteria are discussed in Appendix B. 


The $334.8 billion represents the need associated with thousands of miles of pipe, thousands of treatment plant 
and source projects, and billions of gallons of storage. Investments in water systems not only provide assurances 
of continued delivery of safe drinking water to our homes, schools, and places of business, they are key to local 
economies across our nation. 

As stated in a recent report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors: 

“The estimates exhibit a wide range, but the consensus is that public infrastructure investment yields 
positive returns, and investment in water and sewer infrastructure has greater returns than most other types 
of public infrastructure. 

• A recent study estimates that one dollar of water and sewer infrastructure investment increases 
private output (Gross Domestic Product, GDP) in the long-term by $6.35. 

• With respect to annual general revenue and spending on operating and maintaining water and sewer 
systems, the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that for each 
additional dollar of revenue (or the economic value of the output) of the water and sewer industry, 
the increase in revenue (economic output) that occurs in all industries is $2.62 in that year. 

• The same analysis estimates that adding 1 Job in water and sewer creates 3.68 Jobs in the national 
economy to support that Job.” 


The U.S. Conference of Mayors. Loca/ Government Investment in Municipal Water And Sewer Infrastructure: Adding Value To The National 
Economy. Richard A. Krop, Ph.D., Charles Hernick, and Christopher Frantz. The Cadmus Group, Inc. August 14, 2008. 

Additional Source: 

Pereira, A.M. “Is all public capital created equal?” Review of Economics and Statistics, 82:3 (2000): 513-518. 


9 










Findings - National Need 


■ 2007 Total National Need Compared to EPA’s Previous 
S Assessments 

f The 2007 total national need of $334.8 billion is comparable to the 2003 
9 estimate of $331.4 billion (as adjusted to 2007 dollars), continuing the earlier 
V Assessments success in better capturing previously underreported longer term 

■ needs for infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement. Both the 2003 and 
H 2007 Assessments clearly point to the nation’s water systems having entered a 

■ “rehabilitation and replacement era” in which much of water utilities’ existing 
B infrastructure has reached or is approaching the end of its useful life. 

B Exhibit 1.2 compares the need from this Assessment to past Assessments. Cost 
B indices were used to adjust previous needs to the 2007 Assessment’s month 
B and year. vMthough there are numerous cost indices available, EPA used the 
B Construction Cost Index (CCI) compiled by McGraw Hill Construction 
B because it includes adjustments for labor rates as well as the cost of materials. It 
B worth noting that the CCI shows a cost increase of approximately 3 percent 
B per year from 1995 through 2003, but an approximately 5 percent increase per 
11 year from 2003 through 2007. 

While the 2007 Assessment shares a similar approach and total national 
^ finding with the 2003 Assessment, the results of this most recent effort were 
Jl derived from survey policies purposefully designed to ensure more consistent 
application of need-estimating methodologies across all states and water 
1 systems. These 2007 Assessment policies, including required documentation 
, I to support survey acceptance of projects, are detailed in Appendix C. 



www.iStockphoto.com 


' Exhibit 1.2: Total National 20-Year Need Comparison to Previous 
I DWINSA Findings (in billions of dollars) 



1995 

1999 

2003 

2007 

Total National Need (as listed in 
Assessment Year's Report to Congress) 

$138.4 

$150.9 

$276.8 

$334.8 

Cost adjustment factor to January 2007 
dollars (based on Construction Cost 
Index) 

44.8% 

31.3% 

19.7% 

- 

fTotal National Need (adjusted to 
Uanuary2007 dollars) 

$200.4 

$198.2 

$331.4 

$334.8 


o 




















2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Exhibit 1.3 compares the EPA Assessments to other important assessment efforts. All 
estimates are presented in 2007 dollars. EPA’s DWINSA continues to estimate a need within 
the range identified in these reports: 

• The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report “Future Investment in Drinking 
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure,” which estimates annual water system needs 
of $14.6 billion to $25.2 billion. This extrapolates to a 20-year need in the range of 
$292 to $504 billion.^ 

• EPA’s “Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis,” which 
estimated drinking water systems’ 20-year capital needs in the range of $204 
billion to $590 billion with a point estimate of $363 billion.'^ 

• The Water Infrastructure Network’s (WIN’s) “Clean and Safe Water for the 
21st Century - A Renewed National Commitment to Water and Wastewater 
Infrastructure,” which estimates water system needs of $25 billion annually. This 
extrapolates to $503 billion over 20 years.^ 


Exhibit 1.3: Total 20-Year Need Comparison to Other Assessments 


$292 to $504 


CBO Estimate 


$204 to $590 


$198 $200 


Gap Analysis 
$331 $335 


$503 


EPA ‘95 and ’99 
Assessments 


EPA ‘03 and ’07 
Assessments 


WIN Estimate 


$100 $200 $300 

Estimates in billions of January 2007 dollars 


$400 


$500 


$600 


3 Congressional Budget Office, “Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure,” (November 2002), 
p. ix. Needs were reported in 2001 dollars and have been adjusted to January 2007 dollars for comparison purposes. 

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis,” (September 
2002), p. 5. Needs were assumed to be in 1999 dollars based on the date of the repon and planning period used. Needs 
have been adjusted to January 2007 dollars for comparison purposes. 

5 Water Infrastructure Network, “Clean and Safe Water for the 21st Century - A Renewed National Commitment to 
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure,” (undated), p. 3-1. Needs were assumed to be in 1999 dollars based on the planning 
period and data used. Needs have been adjusted to January 2007 dollars for comparison purposes. 


























Findings - National Need 


Total National Need by Project Type 

Infrastructure needs of water systems can be grouped 
into four major categories based on project type. These 
project types are source, transmission and distribution, 
treatment, and storage. Each category fulfills an 
important function in delivering safe drinking water 
to the public. Most needs were assigned to one of these 
categories. An additional “other” category is composed 
of projects that do not fit into one of the four categories. 
Exhibit 1.4 shows the total national need by project 
type. Exhibit 1.5 shows the total national need by water 
system size and type, as well as by project type. 


Exhibit 1.4: Total 20-Year Need by Project Type 
(in billions of January 2007 dollars) 


Total National Need 
$334.8 Billion 


Transmission 
and Distribution 
$200.8 


60% 




Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. 


Exhibit 1.5: Total 20-Year Need by System Size and Type and Project Type (in billions of 
January 2007 dollars) 


System Size and Type 

Distribution 

and 

Transmission 

Treatment 

Storage 

Source 

Other 

— 

Total Need 

" Large Community Water 
Systems (serving over 
100,000 persons)* 

$72.5 

$26.6 

$9.9 

$6.5 

$0.9 

$116.3 

Medium Community Water 
Systems (serving 3,301 to 
100,000 persons)* 

$91.5 

$29.8 

$15.9 

$7.1 

$0.8 

$145.1 

Small Community Water 
Systems (serving 3,300 
and fewer persons) 

$34.7 

$10.3 

$8.5 

$5.2 

$0.6 

$59.4 

Not-for-Profit 

Noncommunity Water 
Systems^ 

$0.5 

$0.8 

$1.9 

$0.8 

$0.0 

$4.1 

Total State Need 

$199.2 

$67.6 

$36.3 

$19.6 

$2.3 

$324.9 

American Indian and 

Alaskan Native Village 

Water Systems^ 

$1.6 

$0.6 

$0.6 

$0.2 

$0.0 

$2.9 

Costs Associated with 
Proposed and Recently 
Promulgated Regulations 
(taken from EPA economic 
analyses) 


$7.0 




$7.0 

Total National Need 

$200.8 

$75.1 

$36.9 

$19.8 

$2.3 

$334.8 


Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. 

* “Large” and “medium” community water systems are defined differently for this Assessment than in previous Assessments. See Appendix 
A for more information. 

t Based on 1999 Assessment findings adjusted to 2007 dollars. 
























2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Transmission and Distribution Needs 

Transmission and distribution projects are the largest category of need at $200.8 billion over 
the next 20 years (60 percent of the total need). Although the least visible component of a 
public water system, the buried pipes of a transmission and distribution network generally 
account for most of a system’s capital value. Even small rural systems may have several 
hundred miles of pipe. In larger cities, replacement or rehabilitation of even small segments 
of the extensive underground networks of water supply pipes can be costly, both from 
the perspective of the cost of construction and the costs related to disruption to the city’s 
commerce. Regardless of water system size, projects dealing with water mains and related 
infrastructure present challenges. Pipe projects are typically driven by a utility’s need to 
continue providing potable water to its customers while preventing contamination of the 
water prior to delivery. 

The majority of this $200.8 billion need is for replacing or refurbishing aging or deteriorating 
transmission and distribution mains. These projects are critical to the delivery of safe 
drinking water and can help ensure compliance with many regulatory requirements. Failures 
in transmission and distribution lines can interrupt the delivery of water and possibly allow 
contamination of the water. 

The rate at which water mains require replacement or rehabilitation varies greatly by pipe 
material, age of the pipe, soil characteristics, weather conditions, and construction methods. 
Systems that have been unable to rehabilitate or replace mains may have proportionally more 
aged infrastructure, and therefore a higher level of need. In addition, some pipe materials 
tend to degrade prematurely; galvanized pipe is particularly susceptible to corrosion in 
certain soils, and unlined cast iron pipe is susceptible to internal corrosion. Furthermore, 
health concerns associated with asbestos during pipe repair make asbestos cement pipe 

undesirable for some systems. Many water suppliers 
are replacing these types of mains with ductile iron or 
polyvinyl chloride pipe. 

Other projects in the transmission and distribution 

category are; installing new pipe to loop dead end mains 

to avoid stagnant water, installing water mains in areas 

where existing homes do not have a safe and adequate 

water supply, and installing or rehabilitating pumping 

stations to maintain adequate pressure. This category 

also includes projects to address the replacement of 

appurtenances, such as valves that are essential for 

controlling flows and isolating problem areas during 

repairs, hydrants to flush the distribution system to 

maintain water quality, backflow-prevention devices to 

Minerals can build up in old water mains, leading to pressure and avoid contamination, and meters to record flow and 
bacteriological problems. Pipe can be replaced, or it can be rehabilitated vvater consumntion 
using a “pig” to scour the inside of the pipe and remove the deposits. ^ 



Ray Kvalheim, ERA Region 2 








1 


Findings - National Need 


I 

J--- 

i 

Treatment Needs 



The total 20-year national need for treatment is 
estimated to be $75.1 billion. This category includes 
the construction, expansion, and rehabilitation of 
infrastructure to reduce contamination through various 
treatment processes (e.g., filtration, disinfection, 
corrosion control). A large percentage of the regulatory 
need is in this category. Treatment facilities vary 
significantly depending on the quality of their source 
water and type of contamination present. Treatment 
systems range from a simple chlorinator for disinfection 
to a complete conventional treatment system with 
coagulation and flocculation (processes that cause 
particles suspended in the water to combine for easier 
removal), sedimentation, filtration, disinfection, 
laboratory facilities, waste handling, and computer 
automated monitoring and control devices. 

Treatment technologies are used to remove or inactivate 
disease-causing organisms, or to remove or prevent the 
formation of harmful chemicals. 


The treatment category also includes projects to 
remove contaminants that adversely affect the taste, 
odor, and color of drinking water. Treatment for these 
“secondary contaminants” often involves softening 
the water to reduce magnesium and calcium levels, or 
applying chemical sequestrants for iron or manganese 
contamination. Although not a public health 
concern, the aesthetic problems caused by secondary 
contaminants may prompt some consumers to seek 
more palatable, but less safe or affordable sources of water. 


Top photo: Jeanne Cargill, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 
Bottom photo: Charles Pycha, EPA Region 5 

Membrane technologies continue to advance as a viable treatment 
alternative as systems strive to produce higher quality finished water. 


, Source Needs 

The total 20-year national need for source water infrastructure is estimated at $19.8 billion, 
i The source category includes needs for constructing or rehabilitating surface water intake 
structures, drilled wells, and spring collectors. Needs for dams and raw water reservoirs are 
excluded from DWSIfF funding and this Assessment. 

Drinking water comes from either ground water or surface water sources. Wells typically 
are considered ground water sources. Rivers, lakes, other open bodies of water, and wells 
under the direct influence of surface water are considered surface water sources. Whether 
drinking water originates from ground or surface water sources, its raw water quality is an 
























2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Drought 

An emerging need encountered in the 2007 Assessment 
is new source water infrastructure to offset existing and 
anticipated drought conditions. In the past several years, 
water systems across the United States have been adversely 
affected by drought. Because drought is not always long¬ 
term or permanent, the DWSRF-eligibility of projects based 
on speculated continuation of the drought condition was 
not clear. ERA does not question that water systems are 
being affected by drought conditions. However, only a small 
percentage of the systems participating in the Assessment 
have completed plans to address the drought impacts. 
When documentation was lacking or nonexistent, ERA had to 
decide whether a speculative permanent solution or a less 
costly temporary solution should be considered for inclusion 
in the Assessment. ERA also investigated the drought-related 
projects to ensure they were primarily to provide drinking 
water to existing consumers and not for projected growth 
demand. ERA believes the drought-related needs reported in 
the 2007 Assessment capture a small portion of the drought- 
related need water utilities may face in the future. 



important component in protecting public health. A 
high-quality water supply can minimize the possibility 
of microbial or chemical contamination and may not 
require extensive treatment facilities. Many source 
water needs involve construction of new surface water 
intake structures or drilling new wells to obtain higher 
quality raw water. 

A water source should provide an adequate supply 
to enable the water system to maintain minimum 
pressures. Low water pressure may result in the 
intrusion of contaminants into the distribution 
system. The 2007 Assessment includes projects to 
expand the capacity of intake structures and add new 
wells to address supply deficiencies facing existing 
customers. 

Storage Needs 

The 20-year national need estimated for storage 
projects is $36.9 billion. This category includes 
projects to construct, rehabilitate, or cover finished 
water storage tanks, but it excludes dams and raw 
water reservoirs (unless the raw water basins are onsite 
and part of the treatment process) because they are 
specifically excluded from DWSRF funding. It is 
critical that water systems have sufficient storage to 
provide adequate supplies of treated water to the public, 
particularly during periods of peak demand. This 
storage enables the system to maintain the minimum 
pressure required throughout the distribution system 
to prevent the intrusion of contaminants into the 
distribution network. 


Jim McRight, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

Construction of a 2 million gallon clearwell at the new water treatment 
plant west of Kinston, North Carolina, funded partially by the DWSRF. 


Other Needs 

Needs not included in the previous four categories are 
grouped as “other” needs. These needs account for $2.3 
billion of the total 20-year national need. Examples of 
“other” projects are system-wide telemetry, supervisory 
control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems, and 
water system security measures that were not assigned 
to another category. 









Findings - National Need 


Vs 


Need by System Size 

Exhibit 1.6 shows the relationship between infrastructure need, population served, and the 
^ number of community water systems by size category. As this exhibit demonstrates, large 
j systems account for a small portion of the number of community water systems in the 
country, but they serve 45 percent of the population receiving water from community water 
systems and account for 36 percent of the drinking water infrastructure investment need. 
Small systems cannot take advantage of economies-of-scale like large systems and so have 
higher costs per customer. Small systems represent, by far, the largest number of systems, 
but they account for only 9 percent of the population served. In addition, in relation to 
population served, they account for a disproportionate 19 percent of the community water 
system need. Medium systems represent the largest portion of the need, and their need is 
more proportional to the population served. 


Exhibit 1.6: Community Water System 20-Year Need by Size and Population* 



CWS Need 

Water Systems 

Population Served 

System Size 

$ Billions^ 

% of CWS 
Need 

Number of 
Systems* 

% of Water 
Systems* 

Population 

(millions)^ 

%0f 

Population 

Served^ 

Large Community Water Systems 
(serving over 100,000 persons)** 

$116.3 

36% 

584 

1% 

128.6 

45% 

Medium Community Water 
Systems (serving 3,301 to 
100,000 persons)** 

$145.1 

45% 

8,749 

17% 

130.7 

46% 

Small Community Water Systems 
(serving 3,300 and fewer 
persons) 

$59.4 

19% 

41,748 

82% 

24.1 

9% 


Note; Numbers may not total due to rounding. 

* This exhibit reports the need for community water systems. It does not discuss findings for not-for-profit noncommunity systems, needs 
associated with proposed or recently promulgated regulations, or needs for American Indian or Alaskan Native Village water systems, 
t Need reported in billions of January 2007 dollars. 

t Based on the DWINSA sample frame as discussed in Appendix A of this report. 

§ Data on population served from EPA’s Factoid: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2007. EPA 816-K-07-004. March 2008. Does 
not include populations for systems defined as “Federal Systems" or “Native American,” but does include populations served by Alaskan 
Native Village water systems. Factoid distinguished system sizes for "very small," “small,* “medium,” “large," and “very large," allowing direct 
comparisons to system size in the Assessment. 

** “Large" and “medium" community water systems are defined differently for this Assessment than in previous Assessments. See Appendix 
A for more information. 



















2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Needs Associated with SDWA 
Reguiations 

As shown in Exhibit 1.7, 16 percent of the total 
national need, $52.0 billion, is for compliance with 
the SDWA regulations. This need includes existing 
regulations as well as regulations which are proposed 
or recently promulgated (see below). Although all of 
the projects in the Assessment are needed to further the 
goals of the SDWA, most needs are not for obtaining 
or maintaining compliance with a specific regulation. 
Most infrastructure projects are needed to ensure 
continued provision of potable water to a utility’s 
customers. Projects that are directly attributable to 
specific SDWA regulations are collectively referred to 
as the “regulatory need.” Most of the regulatory need involves the upgrade, replacement, or 
installation of treatment technologies. 

The Assessment divides the regulatory need in several ways: existing regulations, proposed 
and recently promulgated regulations, and microbial or chemical regulations. Exhibit E8 
provides a matrix of the regulatory needs by these categories. 

Existing Reguiations 

Microbial Contaminants. 

The surface water treatment regulations (Surface Water Treatment Rule, Interim Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule, Filter Backwash Recycling Rule, Long Term 1 Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule, and covers for finished water reservoirs required by the Long 
Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule) and the Total Coliform Rule are existing 
SDWA regulations that address microbial contamination. Treatment requirements for the 
Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule are included in the proposed and 
recently promulgated regulation need. Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts 


Exhibit 1.8: Total 20-Year National Regulatory Need (in billions 
of January 2007 dollars) 


Regulation Type 

Microbial 

Regulations 

Chemical 

Regulations 

Total Regulatory 
Need 

Existing Regulations 

$29.4 

$15.6 

$45.0 

Proposed or Recently 
Promulgated Regulations 

$3.6 

$3.3 

$7.0 

Total Regulatory Need 

$33.0 

$19.0 

$52.0 

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. 


Exhibit 1.7: Total Regulatory vs. Non- 
Regulatory 20-Year Need (in billions of January 
2007 dollars) 


Total National Need 
$334.8 Billion 


Non-Regulatory 

$282.8 


84% 



Regulatory 

$52.0 


Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. 














Findings - National Need 


Rule regulates the maximum disinfectant 
and disinfection byproducts levels in 
distribution systems and is commo 
grouped with the microbial rules. 

Projects for compliance with existing 
regulations were reported by systems in the 
Assessment and account for more than half 
of the total regulatory need and almost all 
of the microbial contaminant-related need. 
This reflects the fact that the majority of the 
nations large municipal systems use surface 
water sources. Under all of these regulations, 
systems using surface water sources must 
provide treatment to minimize microbial 
contamination. In most cases, this means 
installing, upgrading, or rehabilitating 
treatment plants to control pathogens, such 
as the bacterium E. coli, the virus Hepatitis 
A, and the protozoans Giardia lamblia and 
Cryptosporidium. Disinfection also helps 
protect the system from Total Coliform 
Rule violations. 

Chemical Contaminants. 

This estimate includes projects attributable 
to the Nitrate/Nitrite Standard, the 
revised Arsenic Standard, the Lead and 
Copper Rule, and other regulations that 
set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) 
or treatment techniques for organic and 
inorganic chemicals. Examples of projects are, infrastructure that aerates water to remove 
volatile organic compounds such as tetrachloroethylene, or ion exchange units that remove 
contaminants from the water. This category includes regulations governing more than 80 
inorganic or organic chemicals for which infrastructure projects may be needed. 

Proposed or Recently Promulgated Regulatory Needs 

In general, water systems can readily identify the infrastructure needs required for compliance 
with existing regulations, but most systems have not determined the infrastructure needed 
to comply with proposed or recently promulgated regulations. Therefore, relying on systems 
to report the infrastructure needs for proposed or recently promulgated regulations might 



Assigning Arsenic Needs for Smaii 
Systems in the 2007 DWINSA 

In January 2001, EPA revised the arsenic standard 
to a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 pg/L. 
Systems that cannot meet the revised MCL may 
have capital improvement needs to address arsenic 
in their source water. The 2007 DWINSA requested 
that systems identify their needs associated with 
the revised arsenic standard on their surveys. 

Because the sample of small systems is a national 
sample, and because of the non-uniform distribution 
of arsenic throughout the country, the DWINSA 
workgroup was concerned that the findings of the 
small system survey would not be representative 
of specific states’ need. In short, states with more 
arsenic problems should be assigned a higher small 
system “arsenic need.” 

To account for these needs, EPA took a threefold 
approach. 

• First, small systems with arsenic-related 
needs were identified. EPA used the national 
water system database (SDWIS) and enlisted 
the help of states to determine which small 
systems will have to address the revised 
arsenic standard. 

• Second, a “need” associated with addressing 
the high arsenic levels was estimated for 
individual small systems based on information 
provided by the states and the DWINSA cost 
models. 

• Third, these two factors were used to calculate 
each state's total need for small systems to 
address the revised arsenic standard. 


A A 







2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 



Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

To meet the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment Rule, systems may need to provide additional 
disinfection infrastructure. This ozone contact chamber is 
an example of a type of disinfection that may be applied. 
Treatment needs for recently promulgated regulations 
were estimated separate from the states' surveys, 
through EAs. 


misstate the true need. Consequently, EPA derived the capital 
infrastructure estimates from the EA that the Agency published when 
proposing each regulation, or from the final EA if the regulation has 
been recently promulgated. 

However, since the EAs rely on regional data, they are not appropriate 
predictors of state-specific needs. Therefore, the costs associated with 
the proposed or recently promulgated regulations are allocated at a 
national level, not apportioned to each state. 

The proposed or recently promulgated regulations included in the 
2007 Assessment are: 

• Proposed Radon Rule. 

• Final Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts 
Rule. 

• Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 
Rule (treatment needs only). 

• Final Ground Water Rule. 

The total cost of complying with these regulations is included in 
the 2007 Assessment as future regulatory needs. The capital cost 
estimates for each of these rules are provided in Exhibit T9. 


Exhibit 1.9: Total National 20-Year Need for Proposed and Recently 
Promulgated Regulations (in billions of January 2007 dollars) 


Proposed or Recently Promulgated 
Regulation 

Estimated Total Regulatory 
Need* 

Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 

$2.2 

Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule 

$1.0 

Ground Water Rule 

$0.4 

Radon Rule^ 

$3.3 

Total Proposed or Recently Promulgated Regulatory 
Need 

$7.0 

* Estimates obtained from the appropriate Final or Proposed Rule "Economic Analysis.” These estimates 
include only capital costs (i.e., they exclude operation and maintenance costs). 

t The total capital costs were determined by averaging the capital costs from the Economic Analysis for the 
proposed Radon Rule. 





























Findings - National Need 


Security Needs 

Vulnerability assessments and the identification of security needs 
for water systems are rapidly evolving. Since the September 11, 

2001 attacks, there has been a concentrated national focus on our 
vulnerabilities, and water systems are no exception. The Public 
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 

2002 requires any community water system that serves a population 
of more than 3,300 to prepare a vulnerability assessment. For many 
water systems, particularly the large systems, security measures have 
become fully integrated into the capital costs of major infrastructure 
improvements. 

Projects in the 2007 Assessment that were specifically listed as 
security need account for $422.0 million. However, the total cost 
that systems incur to protect their infrastructure and their customers’ 
water quality is likely far greater because many of these costs are now 
commonly incorporated into the construction cost of infrastructure 
projects rather than considered separately. The majority of security 
needs are mostly “hidden” in the other needs reported by this 
Assessment. 



EPA Region 9 

Storage tanks are equipped with caged ladders for safety 
and are secured to deter trespassers. 



Exhibit 1.10 shows the breakdown of the stand-alone security needs 
by type of project, including fencing, electronic or cyber security, 
other physical security measures, monitoring equipment, and other 
projects listed as having multiple types of security needs. Note that 
these categories are slightly different from those reported in the 
2003 Assessment. They were changed to align with the categories 
now used within the water supply industry. 

Exhibit 1.10: Total National 20-Year Security 
Needs (in millions of January 2007 dollars) 


Total Security Need 
$422.0 Million 


Combination 
Projects and 52% 
Other 
$220.6 


Fencing 

$80.2 



Other 

Physical 

$39.9 


Electronic/ 

Cyber 

$64.8 


Monitoring 

$16.5 


Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding. 


























Exhibit 1.11: Total 20-Year American Indian 
and Alaskan Native Village Water System Need 
by Project Type (in millions of January 2007 
dollars) 


American Indian Water System Need* 

Treatment 
.5 


Transmission 

and 

Distribution 

$976.3 


Total Need 
$1.5 Billion 


64% 



Source 

$105.2 

Other 

$15.3 

Storage 

$180.4 


Transmission 

and 

Distribution 

$636.9 


Aiaskan Native Village Water System Need* 

Treatment 
$300.4 


Total Need 
$1.4 Billion 


46% 



Source 

$56.6 

Other 

$ 1.0 


Storage 

$406.7 


Note: NiiiiiIhts may not total iliie to rotimiin^. 


American Indian and Alaskan Native 
Village Water System Needs 

Because of the effort invested in the 1999 Assessment and 
the high confidence level in the data from that eflort, HPA 
did not resurvey the American Indian and Alaskan Native 
Village water systems for the 2007 Assessment. Instead, 
the need established in 1999 was adjusted to 2007 dollars 
and used as an estimate for the 2007 need. Accordingly, 
the American Indian and Alaskan Native Village water 
systems need to invest an estimated S2.9 billion in capital 
improvements over the next 20 years. 

Ihe total 20-year need for American Indian water systems 
is $1.5 billion. Ihe total 20-year need for Alaskan Native 
Village water systems is $1.4 billion. Ihesc estimates do 
not include the need associated with the revi.sed Arsenic 
Standard. Exhibit 1.11 shows the total American Indian 
and Alaskan Native Village water system need by project 
type. 


‘ Ihcsc-■uiinl>crs do not iniludc (lie need JvsiKiateil 
will) the Arsenic Rule. 



Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 


Residents fill up at a coin-operated watering point in Tuluksak, Alaska. The terrain and permafrost conditions require above ground pipes 
in some parts of the state. 




















I he remote locations ot many widely dispersed 
communities and the limited availability of water 
resources are among the logistical challenges that 
account for the high per-houschold need of American 
Indian water systems. 

The need for Alaskan Native Village water systems 
differs from more typical communit)' water systems in 
that costs for storage in Alaskan Native Village water 
systems exceed those for treatment needs. Tliese water 
systems face higher costs because of their remote arctic 
locations and the unique design and construction 
standards required in permafrost conditions. 

Exhibit 1.12 presents the American Indian and Alaskan 
Native Village water system need by EPA Region. 

r / 





Exhibit 1.12: 20-Year American Indian and 
Alaskan Native Village Water System Need by 
EPA Region (in millions of January 2007 dollars) 


Region 

U 

Total American Indian 
and Alaskan Native 
Village Water System 
Need 

Region 1 

$5.2 

Region 2 

$7.9 

Region 3' 

$0.0 

Region 4 

$23.4 

Region 5 

$206.6 

Region 6 

$199.5 

Region 7 

$18.8 

Region 8 

$175.1 

Region 9^ 

$720.8 

Region 10’ 

$155.4 

Alaskan Native Systems 

$1,401.6 

Need to Comply with the Revised 
Arsenic Standard 

$17.6 

Total 

$2,931.8 

* There are no American Indian water systems in EPA Region 3. 
t Navajo water systems are located in EPA Regions 6. 8. and 9. but for 
purposes of this report, all Navajo water system needs are reported in 
EPA Region 9. 

t; Needs for Alaskan Native Village water s>'stems are not included in the 
EPA Region 10 total. 



EPA Region 9 


A well pump house and storage lank at a small water system in Arizona. 















































2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 



California Department of Health Services 

Construction of a 0.75 million gallon storage tank in Kerman, California. 













Chapter 2: Findings - State Need 


State-Specific Needs 

Since federal fiscal year 1998, the SDWA has required 
EPA to allot DWSRF grants to each state based on the 
findings of the most recent DWINSA. Because of this 
Assessment’s role in determining DWSRF capitalization 
grant allocations, obtaining highly credible and 
statistically valid estimates of each state’s need is crucial. 
Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2 show the total DWSRF-eligible 
need for states, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., and 
the U.S. Territories by project type and system size. 
Exhibit 2.3 is a map indicating each state’s 20-year total 
need. 

DWSRF capitalization grants for fiscal years 2010 
through 2013 will be allocated to states based on 
the findings of the 2007 Assessment. The funding is 
allocated by first setting aside a 1.5 percent allotment 
to American Indian and Alaskan Native Village 
water systems and a 0.33 percent allotment to the 
U.S. Territories (the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and 
American Samoa); the Assessment findings are used 
to help divide these set-asides among these entities. 
I The remaining funds are then divided among the 
’ states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C. based on 
the Assessment’s determination of each state’s relative 
percentage of the total “state need” with each receiving 
no less than the 1 percent minimum allotment. 

States that received the minimum allocation of 1 percent 

V in the most recent allocation were given the option of 
^ a lower level of participation in the Assessment. These 
^ states’ needs are reported as one group referred to as 
S “partially surveyed” states. This option is explained 
« later in this chapter. 

9 The state need does not include costs associated with 
■ proposed or recently promulgated regulations or the 

V need of American Indian or Alaskan Native Village 
9 water systems. 


Partnership for Determining State Need 


The substantial effort involved in collecting data and 
calculating water systems’ 20-year needs relies on a 
partnership between EPA, the states, and the utilities 
themselves. Each partner makes a valuable contribution 
to estimating the DWSRF-eligible needs of drinking water 
systems. 

Water System. Operators and managers of water utilities have 
on-the-ground knowledge of their system’s infrastructure and 
condition. These personnel are in the best position to assess 
their infrastructure needs. 


States. State personnel often have considerable knowledge 
of the systems in their state, and states have staffs whose 
members are trained to assist systems in completing this 
Assessment. The states work with EPA towards consensus 
development of Assessment policies and methods to ensure 
consistency across the states. 




1 

I 


EPA. EPA’s primary roles are to serve as the quality 
assurance agent for the data collection effort, to ensure that 
survey policies and methodologies are met, and to serve as 
a technical resource to assist with capturing complete and 
accurate 20-year needs. EPA provides checks and balances 
for survey submittals to encourage full reporting, to ensure 
consistency and fairness between states, and to control any 
state bias. 



Jeanne Cargill, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 


This new microfiltration plant in Ashland, Wisconsin replaced a treatment 
plant that was over 100 years old. 




mmsmemm 

















2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 

Exhibit 2.1: State 20-Year Need Reported by Project Type (in millions of January 2007 dollars) 


state 

Transmission/ 

Distribution 

Source 

Treatment 

Storage 

Other 

Total 

Alabama 

$3,343.9 

$71.6 

$386.5 

$285.3 

$12.0 

$4,099.4 

Alaska 

$478.2 

$56.4 

$121.3 

$150.0 

$6.5 

$812.4 

Arizona 

$3,819.0 

$460.3 

$2,150.2 

$900.1 

$81.1 

$7,410.7 

Arkansas 

$3,667.5 

$149.3 

$966.0 

$478.3 

$17.4 

$5,278.5 

California 

$22,988.5 

$2,515.3 

$7,549.7 

$5,735.6 

$257.3 

$39,046.3 

Colorado 

$3,156.7 

$371.7 

$2,150.2 

$696.7 

$24.8 

$6,400.1 

Connecticut 

$807.1 

$134.9 

$280.6 

$151.6 

$19.7 

$1,394.0 

District of Columbia 

$836.8 

$0.0 

$0.4 

$35.5 

$1.5 

$874.2 

Florida 

$7,234.9 

$887.3 

$3,552.1 

$975.4 

$173.5 

$12,823.1 

Georgia 

$6,295.6 

$406.2 

$1,390.5 

$751.5 

$93.9 

$8,937.7 

Illinois 

$8,982.0 

$1,576.3 

$2,907.8 

$1,386.7 

$164.2 

$15,017.1 

Indiana 

$3,814.2 

$353.8 

$1,096.1 

$648.5 

$31.8 

$5,944.4 

Iowa 

$4,356.8 

$271.9 

$990.8 

$467.2 

$26.4 

$6,113.1 

Kansas 

$2,784.4 

$187.1 

$684.1 

$339.7 

$35.0 

$4,030.2 

Kentucky 

$3,643.6 

$121.7 

$699.0 

$474.8 

$38.9 

$4,978.1 

Louisiana 

$5,100.7 

$305.7 

$1,024.8 

$427.4 

$41.3 

$6,900.1 

Maryland 

$3,497.6 

$180.6 

$1,134.5 

$606.0 

$24.7 

$5,443.4 

Massachusetts 

$4,456.4 

$340.9 

$1,130.1 

$823.4 

$39.1 

$6,790.0 

Michigan 

$7,657.6 

$529.6 

$2,548.5 

$1,035.8 

$71.3 

$11,842.8 

Minnesota 

$2,819.3 

$372.0 

$1,982.9 

$770.3 

$43.9 

$5,988.4 

Mississippi 

$1,604.4 

$284.7 

$907.2 

$429.8 

$17.2 

$3,243.3 

Missouri 

$4,801.8 

$324.7 

$1,281.2 

$635.7 

$42.3 

$7,085.6 

Nebraska 

$1,017.7 

$140.5 

$309.2 

$300.8 

$8.4 

$1,776.6 

Nevada 

$1,116.4 

$892.3 

$202.2 

$460.6 

$19.8 

$2,691.3 

New Jersey 

$4,722.9 

$307.1 

$1,850.4 

$1,056.7 

$24.7 

$7,961.6 

New York 

$15,417.0 

$1,915.5 

$6,986.2 

$2,707.8 

$110.9 

$27,137.3 

North Carolina 

$6,037.1 

$670.7 

$2,237.7 

$1,032.7 

$77.1 

$10,055.2 

Ohio 

$8,374.2 

$564.2 

$2,235.6 

$1,330.4 

$94.6 

$12,599.0 

Oklahoma 

$2,603.5 

$142.0 

$858.9 

$493.5 

$14.1 

$4,112.1 

Oregon 

$1,520.6 

$156.3 

$546.1 

$536.0 

$26.2 

$2,785.3 

Pennsylvania 

$7,644.9 

$557.1 

$1,834.5 

$1,284.2 

$58.7 

$11,379.3 

Puerto Rico 

$1,079.5 

$80.6 

$1,037.4 

$325.2 

$14.8 

$2,537.5 

South Carolina 

$1,102.7 

$75.2 

$222.3 

$210.2 

$17.9 

$1,628.3 

Tennessee 

$2,356.3 

$109.2 

$692.8 

$368.0 

$21.2 

$3,547.6 

Texas 

$15,950.2 

$1,600.3 

$5,785.2 

$2,695.8 

$99.2 

$26,130.8 

Virginia 

$3,806.3 

$196.0 

$1,293.3 

$722.8 

$43.6 

$6,061.9 

Washington 

$5,765.5 

$717.3 

$1,580.0 

$1,502.7 

$190.6 

$9,756.0 

Wisconsin 

$3,550.5 

$385.1 

$1,467.5 

$758.7 

$24.2 

$6,186.0 

Partially Surveyed States* 

$10,478.1 

$1,131.1 

$3,347.3 

$2,099.5 

$136.3 

$17,192.4 

Subtotal 

$198,690.3 

$19,542.3 

$67,421.3 

$36,091.3 

$2,246.3 

$323,991.4 

American Samoa 

$43.7 

$10.6 

$15.9 

$22.0 

$0.6 

$92.8 

Guam 

— 

$223.6 

$2.0 

$8.6 

$29.7 

$0.0 

$263.9 

Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands 

$123.2 

$28.7 

$61.8 

$65.8 

$9.7 

$289.3 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

$138.3 

$7.1 

$45.9 

$59.8 

$2.3 

$253.3 

Subtotal 

$528.8 

$48.4 

$132.2 

$177.2 

$12.7 

$899.4 

Total State Need 

$199,219.1 

$19,590.7 

$67,553.5 

$36,268.5 

$2,259.0 

$324,890.8 

* For the 2007 DWINSA the need for states that opt out of the medium system portion of the survey is presented cumulatively and not by state. The list of the 14 
partially surveyed states can be seen in Exhibit 2.4. 































































Findings - State Need 

Exhibit 2.2: State 20-Year Need Reported by System Size (in millions of January 2007 dollars) 


state 

Large 

Medium 

Small 

NPNCWS 

Total 

Alabama 

$998.5 

$2,709.8 

$387.2 

$3.8 

$4,099.4 

Alaska 

$85.1 

$302.3 

$363.8 

$61.1 

$812.4 

Arizona 

$4,381.4 

$2,121.3 

$889.4 

$18.5 

$7,410.7 

Arkansas 

$443.6 

$3,854.3 

$973.3 

$7.3 

$5,278.5 

California 

$21,345.9 

$14,098.1 

$3,500.9 

$101.4 

$39,046.3 

Colorado 

$2,079.0 

$3,246.6 

$1,073.2 

$1.3 

$6,400.1 

Connecticut 

$288.3 

$451.2 

$627.0 

$27.5 

$1,394.0 

District of Columbia 

$874.2 

$0.0 

$0.0 

$0.0 

$874.2 

Florida 

$5,135.7 

$5,769.3 

$1,790.4 

$127.7 

$12,823.1 

Georgia 

$2,663.4 

$4,716.0 

$1,544.5 

$13.8 

$8,937.7 

Illinois 

$5,248.1 

$7,006.7 

$2,652.2 

$110.2 

$15,017.1 

Indiana 

$1,417.2 

$3,291.0 

$1,059.9 

$176.3 

$5,944.4 

Iowa 

$458.2 

$4,190.3 

$1,446.2 

$18.4 

$6,113.1 

Kansas 

$766.5 

$2,017.8 

$1,242.3 

$3.5 

$4,030.2 

Kentucky 

$757.5 

$3,879.0 

$340.5 

$1.1 

$4,978.1 

Louisiana 

$3,354.7 

$2,249.4 

$1,281.0 

$14.9 

$6,900.1 

Maryland 

$3,924.1 

$853.3 

$567.8 

$98.2 

$5,443.4 

Massachusetts 

$1,683.3 

$4,649.7 

$424.0 

$32.9 

$6,790.0 

Michigan 

$4,952.6 

$4,677.0 

$1,740.9 

$472.2 

$11,842.8 

Minnesota 

$672.0 

$3,631.7 

$1,416.5 

$268.3 

$5,988.4 

Mississippi 

$227.0 

$1,432.2 

$1,574.5 

$9.6 

$3,243.3 

Missouri 

$1,342.2 

$3,860.3 

$1,844.0 

$39.1 

$7,085.6 

Nebraska 

$379.0 

$632.2 

$749.4 

$16.0 

$1,776.6 

Nevada 

$2,098.2 

$291.2 

$287.7 

$14.2 

$2,691.3 

New Jersey 

$3,636.5 

$3,502.2 

$619.4 

$203.6 

$7,961.6 

New York 

$17,956.6 

$5,434.9 

$3,619.7 

$126.2 

$27,137.3 

North Carolina 

$3,043.9 

$4,907.5 

$1,734.1 

$369.7 

$10,055.2 

Ohio 

$3,172.1 

$7,449.7 

$1,695.0 

$282.2 

$12,599.0 

Oklahoma 

$714.8 

$1,917.2 

$1,457.9 

$22.3 

$4,112.1 

Oregon 

$674.2 

$958.2 

$1,097.3 

$55.6 

$2,785.3 

Pennsylvania 

$3,950.8 

$4,542.2 

$2,604.6 

$281.8 

$11,379.3 

Puerto Rico 

$823.6 

$1,109.4 

$603.3 

$1.2 

$2,537.5 

South Carolina 

$295.4 

$806.1 

$510.6 

$16.2 

$1,628.3 

Tennessee 

$555.8 

$2,224.9 

$738.1 

$28.8 

$3,547.6 

Texas 

$7,614.8 

$13,376.3 

$5,091.9 

$47.7 

$26,130.8 

Virginia 

$2,474.4 

$2,216.5 

$1,279.4 

$91.7 

$6,061.9 

Washington 

$2,686.7 

$4,586.7 

$2,366.6 

$116.1 

$9,756.0 

Wisconsin 

$1,299.2 

$3,074.9 

$1,328.4 

$483.5 

$6,186.0 

Partially Surveyed States* 

$1,664.1 

$8,537.0 

$6,686.7 

$304.5 

$17,192.4 

Subtotal 

$116,139.0 

$144,574.7 

$59,209.6 

$4,068.2 

$323,991.4 

American Samoa 

$0.0 

$59.5 

$33.3 

$0.0 

$92.8 

Guam 

$203.1 

$60.8 

$0.0 

$0.0 

$263.9 

Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands 

$0.0 

$158.6 

$130.6 

$0.0 

$289.3 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

$0.0 

$197.4 

$55.9 

$0.0 

$253.3 

Subtotal 

$203.1 

$476.4 

$219.9 

$0.0 

$899.4 

Total State Need 

$116,342.1 

$145,051.1 

$59,429.5 

$4,068.2 

$324,890.8 

* For the 2007 DWINSA the need for states that opt out of the medium system portion of the survey is presented cumulatively and not by state. The list of the 14 
partially surveyed states can be seen in Exhibit 2.4. 





































































2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Exhibit 2.3; Overview of 20-Year Need by State 



District of 
Columbia 


Puerto Rico 
U.S. Virgin Islands 






American Samoa 
^ Guam 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 


20-year need in billions of 

January 2007 dollars 


Partially surveyed states* 


Less than $1.0 

n 

$1.0 - $2.9 

[S 

$3.0 - $10.0 

1 ■ 

More than $10.0 


* The list of the 14 partially surveyed states can be seen in Exhibit 2.4. 

• Does not include needs for American Indian and Alaskan Native Village water systems. 

- The needs for American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are less than 
$1 billion each. 









































































States that received the minimum DWSRF allotment of 1 percent in the most recent 
allocation were given the option of surveying only the large systems in their state, and not 
collecting data for medium-sized systems. (Small system data were collected by EPA.) This 
option was provided to reduce the burden on these states and allow for resources to be 
focused on the large systems. Of the 24 states (including Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico) 
that received the minimum allocation based on the 2003 DWINSA findings, 14 chose this 
partially surveyed” option. For these states, the medium system need was estimated based 
on data from fully surveyed states. Because this method does not meet the Assessments 
stringent data quality objectives at the state level, the needs of these states contribute to the 
estimate of the total national need but are not reported individually by state. Exhibit 2.4 
shows the large and small system need estimated by state, and the total medium system need 
for the partially surveyed states. 


Exhibit 2.4: State 20-Year Need Reported for Partially Surveyed 
States (in millions of January 2007 dollars) 


State 

Large 

CWSs 

Medium 

CWSs 

Small 

CWSs 

NPNCWSs 

Delaware 

$22.0 

1 


$258.0 

$3.2 

Hawaii 

$30.1 


$160.0 

$1.0 

Idaho 

1 

$114.2 


$738.5 

$37.7 

Maine 

$63.1 


$442.2 

$34.5 

Montana 

$83.6 


$687.6 

$50.7 

New Hampshire 

$98.7 


$686.6 

$61.9 

New Mexico 

$230.0 


$687.5 

$15.4 

North Dakota 

$0.0 


$401.3 

$5.3 

Rhode Island 

$342.3 


$70.0 

$16.1 

South Dakota 

$72.0 


$462.9 

$5.1 

Utah 

$517.7 


$490.7 

$13.0 

Vermont 

$0.0 


$453.0 

$0.2 

West Virginia 

$90.4 


$860.9 

$48.2 

Wyoming 

$0.0 


$287.4 

$12.2 

Total Partially Surveyed 
State Need 

$1,664.1 

$8,537.0 

$6,686.7 

$304.5 


More of the need of the partially surveyed states is for small and medium systems than 
among the rest of the nation. Large system need makes up a relatively small share of the total 
among partially surveyed states because these states generally do not have as many systems 
serving more than 100,000 persons as other states. 











































2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Changes in State-Specific Need through Assessment Cycies 

As shown in Exhibit 2.5, the state-specific results of the 2007 Assessment, when compared 
to previous Assessments, show that states’ needs change, and some change more significantly 
than others during the 4-year intervals between Assessments. Changes in relative needs of 
states from one Assessment to the next can be attributed to two primary factors: 


• Changes in Projects Planned, Initiated, and Completed. Congress specified 
that the DWINSA be repeated at 4-year intervals to capture changes in system 
infrastructure needs. Changes in the reported needs of individual systems from 
one survey period to the next can have a significant effect on the overall state need. 
For instance, in one Assessment a state may have a large system that has identified 
a project with very substantial costs. During that Assessment cycle, that state’s 
need may be increased due to this large project. However, if construction of this 
project begins prior to the next Assessment cycle, those needs would no longer be 
included, and this state’s need may be lower. In addition, conditions within a state 
may change dramatically over a 4-year period and have an impact on that state’s 
need. For example, Louisiana’s needs increased substantially from 2003 to 2007 to 
address the post-Hurricane Katrina infrastructure needs of water systems in New 
Orleans and the surrounding area. 


iinjiao 



Adele Basham, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection 

Raw water and finished water transmission mains are laid 
for an arsenic treatment project in Nevada’s Moapa Valley. 


Changes in National and State Assessment Approaches. State-specific needs 
will be affected by how the Assessment has evolved since the first Assessment was 
conducted in 1995. The Assessment’s “bottom-up” approach of submitting and 
accepting documented needs on a project-by-project basis for each individually 
sampled system has remained essentially unchanged. However, significant 

changes that can have an impact on individual states needs 
have been implemented regarding the parties responsible for 
data collection, the type of documentation required to support 
acceptance of an identified need, and policies and approaches 
implemented to ensure complete and quality data collection 
by the states. The 2003 Assessment provided flexibility to the 
states and water systems regarding approaches for estimating 
longer term rehabilitation and replacement needs. States not 
only used different assumptions for estimating those needs 
but also invested different levels of effort into conducting the 
Assessment. The 2007 Assessment put considerable emphasis 
on gaining consistency across all states and water systems in 
both the means and the level of effort for these estimations. This 
was done through the establishment of well-defined policies 
on project documentation requirements and mechanisms to 
track each state’s progress in achieving a complete assessment of 
needs. The policies and mechanisms are described in Appendix 
C. The impact of the policies varied by state, depending on their 
approach to the previous Assessment. 




Findings - State Need 


Exhibit 2.5: Historic State Need Reported for Each DWINSA (20-year need in 
millions of January 2007 dollars) 


State 

1995 

1999 

2003 

2007 


State 

1995 

1999 

2003 

2007 

Alabama 

$2,402.1 

$1,419.6 

$2,022.2 

$4,099.4 


New Jersey 

$5,230.9 

$4,805.3 

$8,280.6 

$7,961.6 

Alaska 

$1,116.5 

$768.6 

$816.0 

$812.4 


New Mexico 

$1,509.5 

$1,368.4 

$1,104.3 

★ 

Arizona 

$1,959.8 

$2,130.8 

$10,920.0 

$7,410.7 


New York 

$14,596.7 

$17,277.3 

$17,736.3 

$27,137.3 

Arkansas 

$2,930.9 

$2,014.7 

$4,237.2 

$5,278.5 


North Carolina 

$3,929.3 

$3,555.4 

$13,147.5 

$10,055.2 

California 

$27,237.6 

$22,969.0 

$33,372.9 

$39,046.3 


North Dakota 

$849.7 

$643.3 

$726.6 

* 

Colorado 

$2,821.8 

$3,323.3 

$6,374.3 

$6,400.1 


Ohio 

$7,103.0 

$6,512.8 

$11,595.6 

$12,599.0 

Connecticut 

$1,964.1 

$1,322.1 

$782.0 

$1,394.0 


Oklahoma 

$2,940.9 

$3,074.2 

$5,752.4 

$4,112.1 

Delaware 

$538.0 

$399.3 

$288.4 

★ 


Oregon 

$3,110.0 

$3,557.9 

$5,110.0 

$2,785.3 

District of 

Columbia 

$190.5 

$543.8 

$178.9 

$874.2 


Pennsylvania 

$6,885.4 

$6,905.8 

$13,159.6 

$11,379.3 

Florida 

$6,276.3 

$4,891.3 

$18,009.5 

$12,823.1 


Puerto Rico 

$3,263.2 

$2,589.7 

$2,728.6 

$2,537.5 

Georgia 

$4,770.0 

$3,160.4 

$10,797.5 

$8,937.7 


Rhode Island 

$950.7 

$757.9 

$482.1 

* 

Flawaii 

$623.8 

$192.6 

$972.9 

* 


South Carolina 

$2,114.8 

$1,077.6 

$1,491.5 

$1,628.3 

Idaho 

$854.5 

$677.6 

$870.4 

* 


South Dakota 

$823.3 

$577.5 

$1,185.2 

* 

Illinois 

$7,744.9 

$8,076.4 

$16,160.9 

$15,017.1 


Tennessee 

$2,709.0 

$1,851.9 

$3,317.3 

$3,547.6 

Indiana 

$2,424.5 

$2,224.2 

$4,827.7 

$5,944.4 


Texas 

$17,900.6 

$17,161.7 

$33,729.8 

$26,130.8 

Iowa 

$3,265.9 

$3,738.6 

$4,195.5 

$6,113.1 


Utah 

$1,513.5 

$674.9 

$846.4 

* 

Kansas 

$2,861.4 

$2,161.6 

$2,312.1 

$4,030.2 


Vermont 

$664.9 

$403.1 

$472.7 

* 

Kentucky 

$3,220.0 

$2,323.7 

$3,363.2 

$4,978.1 


Virginia 

$4,262.0 

$2,699.4 

$3,430.6 

$6,061.9 

Louisiana 

$2,828.1 

$1,671.7 

$4,917.4 

$6,900.1 


Washington 

$5,835.5 

$5,184.2 

$7,988.6 

$9,756.0 

Maine 

$1,253.0 

$654.8 

$996.0 

★ 


West Virginia 

$1,578.3 

$1,339.6 

$1,032.1 

★ 

Maryland 

$1,859.9 

$2,194.6 

$4,745.5 

$5,443.4 


Wisconsin 

$2,703.2 

$4,068.7 

$7,110.2 

$6,186.0 

Massachusetts 

$8,606.9 

$7,717.7 

$10,243.3 

$6,790.0 


Wyoming 

$565.6 

$580.8 

$357.0 

* 

Michigan 

$6,423.3 

$8,915.4 

$13,543.7 

$11,842.8 


Partial Participation 
States* 

* 

* 

* 

$17,192.4 

Minnesota 

$3,529.0 

$4,070.6 

$6,538.3 

$5,988.4 


Subtotal 

$197,882.0 

S182,564.5 

$315,746.0 

323,991.4 

Mississippi 

$2,281.8 

$1,787.1 

$1,969.1 

$3,243.3 


American Samoa 

$32.5 

$47.8 

$38.7 

$92.8 

Missouri 

$2,720.1 

$2,862.8 

$7,134.3 

$7,085.6 


Guam 

$154.5 

$150.6 

$334.0 

$263.9 

Montana 

$959.3 

$1,145.1 

$945.1 

★ 


Commonwealth of 
the North Mariana 
Islands 

$50.7 

$98.3 

$236.9 

$289.3 

Nebraska 

$1,379.5 

$1,092.8 

$1,621.3 

$1,776.6 


U.S. Virgin Islands 

$323.0 

$212.3 

$216.0 

$253.3 

Nevada 

$759.9 

$791.2 

$1,092.2 

$2,691.3 


Subtotal 

$560.7 

$508.9 

$825.6 

$899.4 

New Hampshire 

$1,038.0 

$655.9 

$713.2 

* 


Total 

$198,442.7 

$183,073.4 

$316,571.6 

$324,890.8 


* For the 2007 DWINSA the need for partially surveyed states that opted out of the medium system portion of the survey is presented cumulatively and not by state. 






















































































2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Continuing Evoiution of the DWINSA 

Each DWINSA’s approach, policies, and guidelines influenced the total national need and 
individual state needs reported for that effort. In all cases, specific project documentation 
requirements and data quality objectives were set by a workgroup of state and EPA 
stakeholders and maintained by EPA. If the 2003 Assessment represented a success in 
better capturing longer term needs than the 1995 and 1999 efforts, the 2007 Assessment’s 
achievement was in helping guide states toward a more consistent methodology in assessing 
those types of needs. EPA believes the development and implementation of the more refined 
and specific project allowability policies (further outlined in Appendix C) resulted in the 
2007 Assessment representing the most thoroughly planned and comprehensive of the four 
Assessments conducted. 


EPA’s quadrennial Assessment will continue to evolve, with each cycle providing valuable 
input as to how the next Assessment can be improved. In addition, it is anticipated that 
challenges which may not have been significant in previous Assessments will arise and affect 
water utilities. EPA will work with the states to improve each survey while maintaining the 
integrity of the Assessment. 



One objective of the 2007 Assessment was to improve the consistency of needs estimates 
across states and water systems. These project estimates rely heavily on required supporting 
documentation. Based on the documentation provided, many water systems are using asset 
management strategies to better understand their longer term infrastructure investment 
needs and to implement more decisive and compelling planning. This planning helps achieve 
the necessary support from rate payers, investors, and local and state governments to gain 
adequate financial support to address these needs. However, it is also clear that for a number 
of systems there remains a significant gap between identifying their inventory of assets and 
their knowledge of that infrastructure’s condition or remaining useful life. For the 2011 
Assessment, EPA will work 
with the states to examine 
how the exercise can not only 
capture an updated status of 
asset planning by water systems 
but also further the adoption of 
such planning. 



Sarah Hudson, Indiana DWSRF 


The City of Fort Wayne, Indiana constructed a new pump building to 
remedy poor pumping configurations, ailowing storage facilities to be 
more fully used. 




















Key Observations on Each Assessment’s Approach 

1995 

For the first survey, conducted in 1995, the DWSRF was not yet in existence and ERA worked directly with 
many utilities to complete the survey with limited involvement from the states. A state/ERA workgroup helped 
plan and design the Assessment. Some states participated in data collection; however, many were unable 
to invest resources beyond encouraging system cooperation. In addition, the 1995 Assessment included 
needs for raw water dams and reservoirs, projects that were later determined to be DWSRF-ineligible for 
future Assessments. (Note - while needs for dams and reservoirs were included in 1995 Assessment, 
these needs were removed in the calculation for the 1998 through 2001 DWSRF allotments.) 

1999 

For the 1999 Assessment, the federal DWSRF program had been established and project-eligibility criteria 
were defined that specifically excluded raw water dams and reservoirs. Therefore these infrastructure 
needs were not included In the 1999 Assessment. The DWINSA workgroup established Assessment 
policies regarding water meters, backflow-prevention devices, and service lines. Although these needs 
were considered allowable for the Assessment, constraints were placed on documentation of ownership 
and whether projects for their replacement could be included. New to the 1999 Assessment was the 
inclusion of the need of not-for-profit noncommunity water systems. Also, state programs were expected to 
participate in data collection for this Assessment. 

2003 

Refinements made to the survey instrument in 2003 encouraged systems and states to think more 
broadly about systems’ existing infrastructure condition and deficiencies, particularly in regard to long¬ 
term needs for replacing or rehabilitating their existing infrastructure assets. Considerable effort was 
invested in promoting a comprehensive approach to inventorying existing assets and estimating the needs 
for likely rehabilitation or replacement over the next 20 years. ERA provided flexibility to surveyed water 
systems and their states to forecast these longer term needs. In the 2003 Assessment, states and systems 
responded with varying means of determining asset inventories and with different assumptions about the 
life cycles of those assets (e.g., estimates of when buried pipe would need to be replaced or rehabilitated). 
In addition, the workgroup amended policies regarding the replacement of water meters as an allowable 
need. In 1999, meter replacements were allowed only if documentation was provided indicating that 
the system owned the meter. In 2003, documentation of ownership was not required. These changes 
resulted in a significant increase in the total national need and an increase in most states’ individual state 
needs. ERA’S objective to better capture the true 20-year need was met, but the states and ERA agreed 
that a more consistent methodology should be pursued in the next Assessment effort. 

2007 

In planning for the 2007 Assessment, ERA and the states came to a consensus that more consistency was 
needed across the states in regard to both methods for determining needs and each state’s approach to 
capturing those needs. Building on the methods and approaches used by the states in the 2003 effort, 
consensus was reached on consistent policies regarding replacement and rehabilitation assumptions 
and documentation requirements to support survey-allowable projects. ERA’S quality assurance reviews 
included significant efforts to ensure the policies were followed by all states. 






















Unique Needs of Water Systems in U.S. 

Territories 

Under SDWA §1452(a)(l){D)(ii), Congress allocates 0.33 percent 
of DWSRF monies to the U.S. Territories (e.g., American Samoa, 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and 
the U.S. Virgin Islands) to be used as grants for water systems. 
For the 2007 Assessment, ERA mailed questionnaires to all large 
systems and to a probability sample of medium-sized systems 
in the U.S. Territories to assess the needs of water systems on 
these islands. 


The Assessment data showed that water systems in the territories 
face unique challenges in providing safe drinking water to their 
citizens. While drinking water issues can vary from island to Island, 
the overall challenges for all of the U.S. Territories include: 

• Rapidly Deteriorating Infrastructure. In many island climates, corrosive soils and years of 
delivering previously untreated water have contributed to a prematurely deteriorated distribution 
system. Inadequate storage and lack of redundancy in the water systems make it difficult to take 
infrastructure off line for required maintenance or replacement. 

• Seasonal, Transient Customers. A high volume of tourists creates considerable fluctuations in 
seasonal water demand that are difficult to design for. Cruise ships and other forms of tourism 
present huge peak demands on water systems already working at capacity. 

• Limited Source Options. The ability to serve existing homes as well as a growing population is 
limited by a lack of quality sources of water. The islands’ water supplies are dependent upon limited 
fresh water sources, ground water aquifers which are susceptible to contamination, and the use of 
rainwater catchments. 

• Ground Water Contamination. Aquifer contamination from waste and sediment runoff, on-site 
wastewater treatment systems, illegal dumping, and salt water intrusion threatens the quality and 
quantity of water pumped from aquifers. 

U.S. Virgin islands 

Due to limited ground water supply and aging infrastructure, the U.S. Virgin Islands, including the islands of 
St. Croix, St. John, and St. Thomas, face current and future water shortages. On St. Croix many homes have 
requested new water service from the island’s single municipal water system, but their requests cannot 
be met due to inadequate supply and the lack of piping to connect them to the system. Approximately 85 
percent of St. Croix’s pipe is ductile iron. Much of this pipe was installed over 50 years ago, has corroded, 
and must be replaced. In addition, desalinization plants on all three islands must be replaced because 
many have been in operation for over 20 years (well beyond manufacturer recommendations) and are 
in disrepair due to age and little or no maintenance. Fluctuations in demand from seasonal, transient 
customers on cruise ships also significantly strain undersized water treatment facilities on St. John and St. 
Thomas. Demand for water on St. John fluctuates from 100,000 gallons per day during the low-demand 
season to over 300,000 gallons per day when demand is high. This situation leads to operational problems 
and water shortages. 


Exhibit 2.6: 20-Year Need 


Reported by U.S. Territories 


Territory 

Total Need* 

American Samoa 

$92.8 

Guam 

$263.9 

Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands 

$289.3 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

$253.3 

*20year need in millions of January 2007 
dollars. 
















American Samoa 

EPA has estimated that up to 50 percent of the population of American Samoa lacks safe drinking water. 
This shortage is due, in part, to ground water contamination which is becoming a concern because the 
main aquifer lies beneath the fastest growing area in the territory, the Tafuna Plains. In addition to the strain 
on the aquifer from increased withdrawals, population development has resulted in increasing human and 
animal pollution. Already 17 percent of residents tested positive for leptospirosis, a potentially deadly 
waterborne disease associated with animal waste. Contributing further to the problem, the vegetative 
buffer mitigating the amount of pollutants reaching the ground water is decreasing with the increase in 
building construction. 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) 

The Commonwealth Utility Corporation in Saipan, the largest island in CNMI, is unable to provide 24-hour 
water service to over 40 percent of its customers because of the inadequate number and poor condition 
of its water sources, coupled with system leakage caused by extremely old and dilapidated infrastructure. 
Many water system facilities, including transmission and distribution mains and storage tanks, pre-date 
World War II and require replacement. Salt water intrusion threatens the quality of ground water sources 
and Is a serious issue on Saipan, where it has led to exceedingly high salinity levels in the drinking water. 
Due to the high salinity of the water, most residents drink bottled water. 

Guam 

Guam faces significant challenges posed by pollutants entering drinking water sources both from 
unmanaged sewage, including many unsewered areas with individual on-site systems only, and from 
problems associated with erosion and runoff. The sole source limestone/karstic aquifer that serves most 
of Guam Is highly susceptible to surface contamination and, based on further study, may be designated as 
ground water under the direct influence of surface water. Guam’s water system also suffers from general 
dilapidation of infrastructure. 



In 2005, the catastrophic failure of a 1 million gallon storage tank in Guam (left) damaged two neighboring tanks, knocking one 
of them out of service (right) and reducing the system's storage capacity by 25 percent. 






















!007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 



EPA Region 9 

A water tank level gauge displays the water level in the tank using a 
floating buoy to move the gauge. This tank has 19 feet of water in it and 
can hold up to 24 feet. 

















Appendix A - Survey Methods 


The 20-year period captured by the 2007 Drinking 
Water Needs Survey and Assessment (DWINSA) runs 
from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2026. 
The Assessment is based on a survey of approximately 
3,250 community water systems and an adjustment of 
findings from previous surveys for the needs of not-for- 
profit noncommunity water systems and water systems 
serving American Indian communities and Alaskan 
Native Villages. Except where noted, the statistical 
and survey methodologies of the 2007 Assessment are 
identical to those used in the 1995, 1999, and 2003 
Assessments. The most significant change is related to 
the survey of medium systems, which is described in 
more detail later in this Appendix. 



Charles Pycha, EPA Region 5 


Construction of a microfiltration treatment plant in Mankato, Minnesota. 
This project was funded by the DWSRF. 


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with input from a workgroup of state 
representatives, developed the methods for the 2007 Assessment. The questionnaire used 
in the 2007 Assessment was essentially the same as the 2003 Assessment questionnaire. 
However, the workgroup revised some of the project documentation policies and data 
collection procedures in order to ensure that a more comprehensive and consistent approach 
was applied by all of the states (see Appendix C for additional information on documentation 
requirements.) 


Assessing the Needs of Water Systems in States and U.S. 
Territories 

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments direct EPA to assess the needs 
of water systems and to use the results of the quadrennial Assessment to allocate Drinking 
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRE) monies. The DWSRF monies are allocated based 
on each state’s share of the total state need with a minimum of 1 percent of the state 
allotment guaranteed to each state, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The need 
represents all community water systems as well as not-for-profit noncommunity systems 
in the states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. The results of the Assessment are 
also used to allocate the 0.33 percent of the DWSRF appropriation designated for the U.S. 
Territories. Therefore, the Assessment was designed to generate separate estimates of need 
for the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Pacific island territories (Guam, American Samoa, and 
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands). 












!007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Frame 



The frame is a list of all members (sampling units) of j 

a population from which a sample will be drawn for a | 

survey. For this Assessment, the frame consisted of all * 

community water systems in each state, Puerto Rico, ^ 

the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Territories. To i 

ensure that the survey accounted for all community' 
water systems in the nation, the universe of water 
systems was obtained from the federal Safe Drinking 
Water Information System (SDWIS-FED). SDWIS- 
FED is EPA’s centralized database of public water » 

systems. It includes the inventory of all public water ; 

systems and provides information regarding population ^ 

served and whether a system uses ground water, surface \ 

water, or both. 

Each state was asked to review the frame and verify or 
correct all information on each system’s source water 
type and population served. EPA used this updated 
information to create a database of the universe of 
community water systems. A sample of systems was 
then selected from this updated frame. 


Adele Basham, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection 

'hese substandard tanks (top) at the Three T Water system in Nevada 
vere replaced with a new tank (bottom) using a DWSRF disadvantaged 
ero percent interest loan. 


Because there are thousands of water systems in the 
nation, EPA must rely on a random sampling of the 
systems identified in the frame. EPA set a precision 
target of ± 10 percent with 95 percent confidence. To meet this target, all large systems were 
surveyed, a random sample of medium systems was selected in each fully surveyed state, and 
a national random sample of small systems was selected. 


Stratified Sampie 

To determine state need, water systems are grouped (stratified) by size (population served) 
and by source (surface or ground water). Exhibit A. 1 shows the possible population and 
source water strata. 

For the purposes of assigning a population to each system, consecutive populations are 
included in the system population because of the assumption that, in general, critical 
infrastructure of the selling-system would need to be sized to accommodate the demand of 
the population directly served by the system and the consecutive population. 

Systems are categorized as surface water if they have at least one source that is surface water or 
ground water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI). Systems are categorized 
as ground water if they do not have a surface water or GWUDI source. The ground water 












Appendix A - Survey Methods 


category includes ground water systems and systems that do not have a source of their own 
and purchase finished water from another system (regardless of whether the purchased water 
comes from a surface water or ground water source). The decision to include purchased water 
systems in the ground water systems category was based on the 1995 Assessment’s findings 
that, in general, indicated the needs of purchased water systems more closely resemble those 
of ground water systems than of surface water systems with source water treatment. 

Conducting the Survey of Large Systems 

For the 2007 Assessment, a large system is defined as serving more than 100,000 persons, 
either through direct connections or as a wholesale water system. Because of the unique 
nature of systems in this size category and because they represent a large portion of the 
nation’s need, these systems are sampled with certainty, meaning that all systems receive a 
questionnaire. In the previous Assessments (1995, 1999, 2003), the large system category 
was defined as systems serving populations of more than 40,000 or 50,000. The 2007 
Assessment set this category at a higher threshold to reduce costs and burden on the states. 
The overall precision targets were still met. Systems serving 50,000 to 100,000 persons were 
included in the approach for medium systems. 


Exhibit A. 1: Community Water System Stratification for the 2007 Assessment 


1 Population 

Surface Water 

Ground Water 

Large 

> 100,000 

Sampled v 
- All syste 
quest 

1 

i/ith certainty 
ims receive 

ionnaire 

Medium 

50,001 -100,000 



25,001 - 50,000 

or 10,001 - 
50,000* 

State-s| 

oecific 

'\r> ■frs r 

10,001 - 25,000 

odilipit 

participati 

i.i'O 1 D I 

ng states 

3,301 -10,000 



Small 

501 - 3,300 



101 - 500 

National 
sample for 

< 100 

small systems 

^ 

*ln some states, systems serving 10,001 - 50,000 can be considered one stratum and precision targets can be met. The most 
efficient sample is drawn from each state. 




























^007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Exhibit A.2: Medium and Large Community Water System Sample Size 



Total Number of Systems in Inventory 

Number of Systems Selected in Sample 

Stats 

F 

Population Served 

F 

Population Served 


3,301 - 
100,000 

> 100,000 

Total 

3,301 - 
100,000 

> 100,000 

Total 

Alabama 

336 

18 

354 

131 

18 

149 

Alaska 

17 

1 

18 

14 

1 

15 

Arizona 

117 

10 

127 

22 

10 

32 

Arkansas 

171 

3 

174 

93 

3 

96 

California 

562 

114 

676 

93 

114 

207 

Colorado 

147 

12 

159 

33 

12 

45 

Connecticut 

52 

7 

59 

43 

7 

50 

Delaware 

23 

3 

26 

- 

3 

3 

District of Columbia 

- 

1 

1 

- 

1 

1 

Florida 

338 

44 

382 

75 

44 

119 

Georgia 

202 

16 

218 

48 

16 

64 

Hawaii 

28 

2 

30 

- 

2 

2 

Idaho 

44 

1 

45 

- 

1 

1 

Illinois 

443 

19 

462 

76 

19 

95 

Indiana 

200 

13 

213 

98 

13 

111 

Iowa 

132 

3 

135 

44 

3 

47 

Kansas 

113 

6 

119 

39 

6 

45 

Kentucky 

259 

7 

266 

107 

7 

114 

Louisiana 

216 

8 

224 

91 

8 

99 

Maine 

34 

1 

35 

- 

1 

1 

Maryland 

50 

5 

55 

21 

5 

26 

Massachusetts 

226 

12 

238 

52 

12 

64 

Michigan 

292 

14 

306 

51 

14 

65 

Minnesota 

158 

2 

160 

63 

2 

65 

Mississippi 

195 

2 

197 

164 

2 

166 

Missouri 

201 

6 

207 

84 

6 

90 

Montana 

33 

1 

34 

- 

1 

1 

Nebraska 

42 

2 

44 

22 

2 

24 

Nevada 

31 

5 

36 

10 

5 

15 

New Hampshire 

35 

2 

37 

- 

2 

2 


Each large system was asked to complete the questionnaire and return it along with 
accompanying documentation to its state coordinator. The state coordinators reviewed the 
questionnaires to ensure that the systems included all their needs, the information entered 
on the questionnaire was correct, and the projects were eligible for DWSRF funding. During 
their state reviews, states often contacted systems to obtain additional information. The 
states then submitted the questionnaire and all documentation to EPA for a final review. 

Of the 584 large systems that received a survey for the 2007 Assessment, 570 completed 
the questionnaire—a response rate of 97 percent. Exhibit A.2 shows the number of large 
systems in the frame as well as the sample size for each state. 















































Appendix A - Survey Methods 


Exhibit A.2: Medium and Large Community Water System Sample Size, cont. 


Total Number of Systems in Inventory Number of Systems Selected in Sample 

Population Served Population Served 



3,301- 

100,000 

> 100,000 

Total 

3,301 - 
100,000 

> 100,000 

Total 

New Jersey 

215 

12 

227 

55 

12 

67 

New Mexico 

59 

1 

60 

- 

1 

1 

New York 

326 

28 

354 

37 

28 

65 

North Carolina 

248 

20 

268 

34 

20 

54 

North Dakota 

31 

- 

31 

- 

- 

- 

Ohio 

300 

14 

314 

77 

14 

91 

Oklahoma 

156 

4 

160 

58 

4 

62 

Oregon 

101 

8 

109 

41 

8 

49 

Pennsylvania 

313 

27 

340 

56 

27 

83 

Puerto Rico 

114 

8 

122 

55 

8 

63 

Rhode Island 

26 

2 

28 

- 

2 

2 

South Carolina 

158 

9 

167 

43 

9 

52 

South Dakota 

41 

1 

42 

- 

1 

1 

Tennessee 

264 

18 

282 

105 

18 

123 

Texas 

922 

46 

968 

74 

46 

120 

Utah 

98 

7 

105 

- 

7 

7 

Vermont 

34 

- 

34 

16 

- 

16 

Virginia 

145 

18 

163 

32 

18 

50 

Washington 

187 

12 

199 

47 

12 

59 

West Virginia 

107 

3 

110 

- 

3 

3 

Wisconsin 

172 

5 

177 

54 

5 

59 

Wyoming 

27 

- 

27 

- 

- 

- 

Subtotal 

8,741 

583 

9,324 

2,258 

583 

2,841 

American Samoa 

1 

- 

1 

1 

- 

1 

Guam 

2 

1 

3 

2 

1 

3 

Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands 

2 

- 

2 

2 


2 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

3 

- 

3 

3 

- 

3 

Subtotal 

8 

1 

9 

8 

1 

9 

Total 

8,749 

584 

9,333 

2,266 

584 

2,850 


Conducting the Survey of Medium Systems 

Medium systems, as defined for the 2007 Assessment, serve between 3,301 and 100,000 
persons. Exhibit A.2 shows the number of medium systems in the frame and sample by 
state. States with a dash in the medium system sample column opted not to collect data for 
these systems. 

For the 2007 Assessment, states that received the minimum 1-percent DWSRF allotment 
in the 2003 Assessment were given the option of not participating in data collection for 
medium-sized systems. This option was provided in order to reduce burden on the small 













































2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


states that receive the same allotment regardless of the findings of the survey. Of the minimum 
allocation states, 14 chose not to participate in this portion of the survey. The medium 
system need for states that chose this option was estimated based on data from participating 
states. Because this method does not meet the Assessment’s formal precision targets at the 
state level, the needs of these partially surveyed states contribute to the estimate of the total 
national need, but medium system need is not reported individually by state. 

For states that participated in the medium system portion of the survey, the data collection 
process was similar to that of large systems with the system completing the survey, the state 
providing input, and the final review conducted by EPA. 

Once the need for systems in the fully surveyed states was calculated, it was used to 
determine the need for the partially surveyed states. An average need per stratum from 
fully surveyed states was calculated and applied to the inventory of systems in the partially 
surveyed states. 

Of the 2,266 medium systems that were randomly selected and received a survey, 2,082 
completed the questionnaire for a response rate of 92 percent. 

Conducting the Survey of Small Systems 

Exhibit A.3 shows the total inventory and sample size for the national sample of small 
systems. Small systems, as defined for the 2007 Assessment, serve 3,300 or fewer persons. 
Because small systems often lack the resources to complete information collection requests 
and do not always have the resources to produce longer term planning documents, EPA 
does not ask these systems to complete a questionnaire. Instead, EPA collects the data by 
sending qualified, trained professionals to interview system personnel and document project 
needs. This process was used for small systems in the 1995 and 1999 Assessments as well 
as the 2007 Assessment. In 2003, in an effort to reduce costs, EPA used the 1999 need 
estimates adjusted to 2003 dollars. 

For the small system survey, a national sample of 600 systems was selected to represent 
the national need of the 41,748 small systems. To select this sample, EPA used two-stage 
probability proportional-to-size sampling (PPS) with six strata. Systems were stratified based 
on population served (i.e., less than or equal to 100, 101 to 500, and 501 to 3,300 persons) 


Exhibit A.3: Small Community Water System 
Sample Size 



Total Number 
of Systems in 
inventory 

Number of 
Systems in 
Selected Sample 

Systems Serving 
3,300 or Fewer 
Persons 

41,748 

600 


34 








Appendix A - Survey Methods 


and source water type (i.e., ground or surface water.) Systems were grouped by county or 
clusters of counties. In the first stage, a random sample of counties or cluster of counties 
were selected. The probability that a county or county cluster was selected was proportional 
to the number of small systems in each stratum in the county or county cluster. In the second 
stage, five systems were selected randomly from each county or county cluster. This approach 
minimized travel and expenses for site visits. A total of 600 systems were selected. 

Needs data from the 600 small systems were collected by EPA contractors. To ensure that the 
data collected were as accurate as possible, EPA contracted with water industry professionals, 
including engineers, operators, and state primacy agency experts, to complete the small 
system surveys. These site visitors participated in a 2-day training session on the Assessment 
methodology and were trained to assess the current condition of a small water system and 
to estimate its 20-year needs. 

Since trained and qualified contractors completed the surveys on-site with the system 
representatives, there was a high confidence in the surveys. The surveys were submitted 
directly to EPA for review rather than first going through a state representative. After data 
collection, the needs of small systems were assigned to each state by multiplying the average 
need per stratum by the number of small systems in that stratum (from the inventory of 
small systems in each state). It is important to note that conducting a field survey in this 
manner allows for consistent estimation of project needs across all surveyed systems. 


System Weight 

As in the previous efforts, the 2007 Assessment assigned weights to the findings from each 
surveyed water system to determine total state needs. Because all large systems are included 
in the survey, each large system has a weight of 1. The state need for large systems was 
determined by summing the cost of each project for each system and then summing the 


need for each large system in the state. Systems were not 

For medium systems, EPA determined the number of 
water systems that must be included in each stratum 
in order to achieve the desired level of precision. The 
surveyed systems were selected and assigned an initial 
weight for their specific state equal to the total number 


re-weighted for nonresponse. 



EPA Region 9 


35 






















2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


of systems in that stratum divided by the number of systems in that stratum’s sample. A 
final weight was recalculated for each stratum with adjustments for non-response and 
systems changing stratum (population or source changes). Each fully surveyed state’s need 
for medium systems was determined by summing the cost of each project for each system, 
and then multiplying each system’s need by the system’s final weight. 

The number of medium sized water systems selected from each stratum was determined 
by the total number of systems in that stratum (shown in Exhibit A. 1), the percentage 
of that state’s need represented by that stratum in the most recent Assessment, and the 
relative variance of the need within that stratum in the most recent Assessment. The sample 
is allocated among the strata in a manner that lets the survey achieve the desired level of 
precision with the smallest sample size for each state. 

Small system weighting was conducted in a manner similar to the medium systems, but was 
assigned on a national scale rather than a state-level scale. The small system national need 
is determined by summing the cost of each project for each system and then multiplying 
each system’s need by the system’s final weight. The small system state need was estimated 
by determining the average system need for a stratum and multiplying the average by the 
number of small systems a given state has in that stratum. 

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the survey 
design and instrument were reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB). The Information Collection Request (ICR) for the survey can be accessed 
in the Federal Register/Vol. 71, No.206/Wednesday, October 25, 2006/Notices p62439. 

Assessing the Need of Not-for-Profit Noncommunity Systems 

Not-for-profit noncommunity water systems (NPNCWS) are eligible for DWSRF funding. 
The 2007 need for NPNCWSs was based on the findings of the 1999 Assessment in which 
a statistical survey of these systems was conducted. These findings were adjusted to January 
2007 dollars using the Construction Cost Index (CCI). 

During the 1999 Assessment, EPA collected data from a national sample of 100 NPNCWSs 
through site visits. Unlike the sampling design for community water systems, the NPNCWS 
sample was not stratified into size and source categories because EPA lacked the empirical 
information on variance necessary for developing strata. The sample used for the 1999 
Assessment for NPNCWSs was designed to provide a 95 percent confidence interval that is 
within a range of +/- 30 percent of the estimated need. 


36 



Appendix A - Survey Methods 


The national need for NPNCWSs was allocated among 
the states in proportion to the inventory of NPNCWSs 
in each state in a manner similar to that used for small 
systems. 

Assessing the Need of American Indian 
and Alaskan Native Village Water 
Systems 

The infrastructure need reported for American Indian 
and Alaskan Native Village water systems was based 
on the findings of the 1999 Assessment. Because of the 
high level of confidence in the findings from 1999 and 
resource constraints, EPA did not survey these systems 
again in 2007. Instead, EPA used the CCI to adjust the 
estimated need from 1999 to 2007 dollars to estimate 
the 2007 needs for these systems. The results are used to 
help determine how to allocate monies that are available through the DWSRF to American 
Indian and Alaskan Native Village water systems. 

American Indian Water Systems 

In 1999, all American Indian systems serving populations of 3,301 to 50,000 were 
sampled. These systems were given the choice of either completing the survey themselves 
or participating in an interview to capture their needs. For systems serving 3,300 or fewer 
persons, a random sample of systems were chosen and site visits were conducted by qualified 
and trained professionals. 

Alaskan Native Village Water Systems 

All Alaskan Native Village water systems were sampled in the 1999 Assessment. The medium 
systems, serving populations of 3,301 to 50,000, were mailed a questionnaire. The needs of 
small systems, serving 3,300 or fewer, were developed by a roundtable of representatives from 
the Alaskan Native Villages, Village Safe Water, and the Indian Health Services (IHS), with 
assistance from EPA. Site visits to five Alaskan Native Village water systems were performed 
to confirm the roundtable’s findings. 



Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

Alaskan Native Village water systems require specialized infrastructure 
to prevent freezing in permafrost conditions. Many Alaskan Natives 
rely on water hauling stations such as this one to obtain their water 
for domestic use. 


37 







FER| ■* 

. f .. 






2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 






7^ 






♦ r 





■'; ■*. ,* 

I?- ^ 4***- ■ < 






I A.' 








I .. n |- 


n 


-'^ Vl « ‘i 






. I. 


* A< 4 

. ^ ‘ 

r • ^ 


BP* 


fr 


ftl’. l‘i 


t'{ 

i 


W . 






f - 


f ‘ f 




t-- 

■ - 


‘ '•N»' 




f- 




. r V' 


rS. -_- 







- Ji. 





»“ f- 


f> : 

V- i 


/ 



-W' 




! i 

-<^‘‘ I 

lEk 

■El^ 


V... r 


•t V 


J •* —" 


sJVji ' ■-• 



•J < 




0 r-» 

T 1«<1 -f 




r 

* r-i- 


f*. 

11 r 


/ 


H 




1- 


. V. 





** 

# . 

. .> 


' . <:,-> fl*" '* 


■*J»' 


-.* 4 f ^ 

.* IH 


, 

4 

f a'. 

lilP, ^ 

V 


'. ' u ' t • •• 

>i: f# W.'I.‘ , '-• ' - * 

'. iit \ [Ji “ ’ C 

’ * ' t w> *^t.' * ^ 

.rAK\-. i- 

-r* ‘ .. ^■'' ■ ■ ' 




-2*. 


S 




»• I' 


Au|k|’ T «“ 






li* 




^;: ’ 


/■' 


fv- 




*'. » 

' t • . 




t- . 




'< V • 




V,. ■• 


■ n- 


L. ' 

art A. ■ . 


*♦ 



‘ ' /i ' 






5i ■*■ 


'S' * 



A ' 


"»• 




'‘'tl 


-,V 


tt 


If- f 


ijii 




, si- -’-i 


f' 




■il?> 






; I 


H ^ 


, ■' 

,, - “i 4 A • 


j 


»%• 


*1? C ■* *. S i ^ 

■'t-^ f ' 1' '*' i , . .' 

■-^^ ■• ,l "•^k 

• _ .. ’ 




-^C 


i .^. 

•tv.i 


^+.* •?■. ‘m.*'.t.'/•■.. f i, 




1^ 














Appendix B - Data Collection 


To determine the scope of water systems’ 20-year need, data are collected in the form of 
capital improvement projects. States and other agencies work with the surveyed systems to 
identify applicable projects. To be included in EPA’s Assessments, each project had to meet 
each of the following four criteria: 

• The project must be for a capital improvement. 

• The project must be eligible for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) 

• The project must be in furtherance of the public health protection goals of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 

• The project must be submitted with supporting information that documents the 
three other criteria are met. 

Projects included in the Assessment generally fall into one of two categories that describe 
the reason for the project: 

• Replacement or rehabilitation of existing infrastructure due to age or deterioration. 

• New or expanded infrastructure to meet an unmet need for the current population 
or to comply with an existing regulatory requirement. 

Projects for infrastructure generally expected to need rehabilitation or replacement in the 
20-year period covered by the Assessment were accepted with minimal documentation 
describing their scope and the reason for the need. However, other types of projects required 
independently generated documentation that not only identified 
the need but also showed clear commitment to the project by the 
water system’s decision-makers. Exhibit B. 1 summarizes the types of 
projects that were included and the types that were unallowable. 

For the purposes of assigning a cost to each need, the survey required 
that the water system either provide an existing documented cost 
estimate or the information necessary for EPA to assign a cost. 

This information was referred to as the “design parameter” and is 

discussed in more detail in this Appendix. 

Survey Instrument 

As with previous Assessments, the 2007 questionnaire was the survey 
instrument for reporting all needs. All large water systems and a 
random sample of medium systems were mailed a survey package, 
which included the questionnaire, instructions for completing the 



Photo by Robert Barles 



39 








2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Exhibit B.l: DWINSA Allowable and Unallowable Projects 


DWINSA Allowable Projects 


Criteria: 

• Eligible for DWSRF funding 

• Capital improvement needs 

• In furtherance of the public health goals 
of theSDWA 

• Within the Assessment time frame 

• Adequate documentation 

Project Types: 

• New or expanded/upgraded 
infrastructure to meet the needs of 
existing customers 

• Replacement or rehabilitation of 
existing undersized or deteriorated 
infrastructure 


DWINSA Unallowable Projects 


Raw water reservoir- or dam-related needs 
Projects needed primarily to serve future population growth 
Projects solely for fire suppression 
Projects for source water protection 

Non-capital needs (including studies, operation and maintenance) 

Needs not related to furthering the SDWA’s public health 
objectives 

Acquisition of existing infrastructure 

Projects not the responsibility of the water system 

Needs associated with compliance with proposed or recently 
promulgated regulations (Derived instead from EPA’s economic 
analyses and added to the national total) 

Projects or portions of projects started prior to January 1, 2007 
Projects or portions of projects needed after December 31, 2026 


questionnaire, and a list of codes used to convert the information to a database format. 
These documents were also used by the site visitors for recording small system needs. 

The instructions provided to the water systems included information on the background 
and purpose of the Assessment as well as how to identify projects that should be included 
in the questionnaire. In addition to infrastructure needs, the survey also requested basic 
information from the water systems such as the size of the population served, the number 
of service connections, the production capacity, the source water type, and the system’s 
ownership type. This information was compared to the information used for the sample 
frame. Discrepancies in source and population were investigated to ensure accurate 
information was used for the statistical sample. 

Project Documentation 

Each project listed on the questionnaire was required to have accompanying written 
documentation of its scope and why it was needed. Written documentation included master 
plans, capital improvement plans, sanitary survey reports, and other sources of project 
information. Whether the documentation could be written for the 2007 Assessment or had 
to be pre-existing depended on the type of project that was described. All documentation for 
every project was reviewed by EPA to ensure that the project met the allowability criteria for 
the Assessment. See Appendix C for more information on the project allowability policies. 


40 








Appendix B - Data Collection 


Cost Estimates and Modeling 

As with previous Assessments, costs assigned to projects were obtained in one of two ways. 
If the system had an existing documented cost estimate that met the documentation criteria 
of the survey, this cost was adjusted to 2007 dollars and used for that systems need. This is 
the preferred approach for assigning a cost to a project. If no cost estimate was available, the 
system was asked to provide information (design parameters) necessary for EPA to model 
the cost of the project. Cost models were built from the documented cost estimates provided 
by other survey respondents. 

Acceptable forms of documentation for cost estimates were capital improvement plans, 
master plans, preliminary engineering reports, facility plans, bid tabulations, and engineer’s 
estimates that were not developed for the 2007 Assessment. Each project with an associated 
cost was required to provide the month and year of the cost estimate in order to allow an 
adjustment of the cost to January 2007 dollars. 

Systems that had cost estimates were encouraged to submit design parameters regarding 
size or capacity of the infrastructure. For example, a tank is described in terms of volume 
in millions of gallons, treatment plants are based on capacity in millions of gallons per day, 
pipe parameters are diameter and length. Over 70 project types of need were used to describe 
projects and link design parameters to cost. This combination of the specific type of project, 
costs, and parameters was used as input to develop cost models. Prior to input to the cost 
models, the cost estimates were normalized for both time frame and location. Cost estimates 
prior to January 2007 were adjusted to January 2007 dollars using the Construction Cost 
Index (CCI). Regional variations in construction costs were normalized by location using 
the RS Means “Location Factors Index.” RS Means is a subsidiary of Reed Construction 
which publishes an annual index used to calculate construction costs for a 
specific location. The factor multiplier is expressed as a relationship to the 
national average of I. 

Although over 70 different types of need were used, a few project types could 
not be modeled. These types of need were unique to individual systems and 
did not lend themselves to modeling (examples include de-stratification of 
a surface water source, pump controls and telemetry, and security features 
other than fencing). 

Ultimately some projects were not able to be assigned a cost because a 
cost estimate from the system was not provided and project information 
submitted on the survey did not include the necessary design parameters 
required for modeling. 


Photo by Michelle Lee 



41 





2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Web Site and Database 

EPA used a 2007 surevy-specific Web site to provide an efficient method of tracking and 
monitoring questionnaire responses for states and Regions. The Web site allowed controlled 
viewing of survey information and provided a means for states to provide additional project 
information if needed. Water systems, state contacts, and EPA had secure login access to 
the Web site. The Web site was a modification of the one used successfully for the 2003 
Assessment. 







Needs Survey and Assessment 







It • V : J*- E 
.K'' '■*; * ■ 


S?5:cm Status All .v-.r Washington 




PWSID * 


VVAS30130> 

VVA530183' 

VVAS30220 ‘ 

WAS30335‘ 

WA53055J 


Ai.DEg\VO: 


* u ■'t Use * U« 

C 'tir C T<tr»cE jtr_ 
:gTF: : t- , 
AUBuRniMTEft Ct. 


A screen shot from the DWINSA Web site. 


Once logged into the Web site, water systems had access to their own project data, states 
had access to all project data for the water systems in their state, and EPA regional offices 
had access to the project data of states within their region. Web site users were given “read 
only” or “read/write” access depending on whether information posted to the Web site could 
be changed by that entity. This created a transparent process and open communication 
between systems, states, and EPA while also maintaining a secure environment so that 

persons without reason to see the data did 
not have access. 

The Web site also served as a means of 
communication between states and EPA. 
As EPA completed the quality assurance 
reviews of each questionnaire, the 
information was uploaded to the Web site 
database along with specific indications 
of any changes that had been made to 
the projects and why the changes were 
implemented. 

Each state was able to view all its 
systems’ projects and submit additional 
information for projects that had been 
changed or deemed unallowable through 
EPA’s quality assurance review. 


--v: ■ , 




Current Filters 

at 


Symm 

Not App«tcabt« 


• IMat 

• urgt 



B 





" “5 f-1’ 

113:oo7 

• If :oo" 

* 31 ZOO’f 
f * 200" 
7 10 200 " 
7 10 200" 
113 2007 


3T 2008 L»'9« 


□ 04^ : C9 


t 21 2007 
1 22 2008 
■ 1 2008 
; U2008 
3 28 2008 


S'rill 

S'TsaH 

L*'3« 


If 

1“ 


3*2008 


*1 Ilf 


Quality Assurance 

As with all three earlier Assessments, the findings of the 2007 Assessment are reinforced by 
adherence throughout the project to the principles embodied in the EPA Guidelines for 
Ensuring and Maximizing Information Quality. The most fundamental assurance of the 
high degree of information quality is the implementation of the Agency’s Quality System. 
EPA implements the system through the development of a quality assurance project plan 
(QAPP) for each project, which details the specific procedures for quality assurance and 
quality control. 


42 



















Appendix B - Data Collection 


Because the Agency uses the results of this Assessment to allocate DWSRF capitalization 
grants to states, this Assessment (like those that preceded it in 1995, 1999, and 2003) sought 
to maximize the accuracy of the state-level estimates of infrastructure needs. Decisions about 
precision levels, policies, and procedures were established by a state/EPA workgroup that 
met regularly during the 2007 Assessment. 

Accuracy was maximized at the national, state, system, and project levels through the 
following steps. First, since this was a sample survey, the workgroup established targets for 
precision of estimates in the sampling to shape the national sample design. These precision 
targets are discussed in Appendix A. 

Second, EPA used quality assurance procedures from the QAPP to ensure that “eligible 
infrastructure was clearly defined and that documentation standards were rigorously 
enforced. As noted previously, for a project to be included in the 2007 Assessment, systems 
and states had to submit documentation describing the purpose and scope of each project. 
The documentation was reviewed by EPA to determine whether each project met the 
eligibility criteria. The workgroup established the documentation requirements so that 
uniform criteria were applied to all questionnaires. 

Of the 94,852 projects submitted to the survey, EPA accepted 79 percent. The 21 percent 
that were not allowed failed to meet the documentation criteria or appeared to be ineligible 
for DWSRF funding. Some projects were adjusted to correct a variety of measurement 
problems, such as overlaps between two projects (raising the issue of double-counting), 
inconsistency of recorded data with project documentation, and the use of overly aggressive 
(short) infrastructure life cycles by states where system planning documents were not used 
or available. 

Third, after the survey review process, the project data were entered into a database using 
dual data entry procedures to ensure the information was correctly transferred. The uploaded 
data then went through a systematic verification process to identify any outliers or data- 
entry errors. Each project, the systems’ source water type, total pipe length, population, and 
number of connections were reviewed for any unusual entries. The data were then compared 
at the state and national levels to identify any outliers in the data. EPA investigated the 
outliers by reviewing the system’s project documentation. If the documentation did not 
provide enough information to verify the project, EPA contacted the state or the system for 
confirmation. 


43 





2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 



Photo by Charles Hernick 


Windsor Dam at the Quabbin Reservoir in Massachusetts. 


44 








Appendix C - Policies 


EPA recognizes that it is critical to the credibility of the 
2007 Assessment and fairness to the states that EPA 
work with the DWINSA workgroup to set clear and 
well-defined data collection policies and for EPA to 
apply these policies consistently to all systems and states. 

The policies are aimed at ensuring that the Assessment 
meets its Congressional intent, maintains the credibility 
of the findings, and establishes a level playing field for 
the states. To this end, the policies developed ensure 
two essential criteria - that only allowable needs be 

ely documented 

according to Assessment criteria. 

Project Allowability 

Because the findings of the Assessment are used to allocate DWSRF monies, only needs 
associated with DWSRF-eligible projects are included in the findings. Eligibility criteria 
for the DWSRF are established in the Safe Drinking Water Act. SDWA Section 1452(a)(2) 
states that DWSRF funds may be used: 

“only for expenditures (not including monitoring, operation, and maintenance expenditures) 
of a type or category which the Administrator has determined, through guidance, will 
facilitate compliance with national primary drinking water regulations applicable to the 
system under Section I4l2 or otherwise significantly further the health protection objectives 
of this title.... ” 

Needs are submitted in the form of capital infrastructure projects. To be considered an 
allowable need, a project must be eligible for DWSRF funding, be in furtherance of the 
public health protection objectives of SDWA, fall within the prescribed 20-year time frame 
(January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2026), and be adequately documented. 

Projects Must Be for a Capital Improvement Need 

Projects that do not address a specific, tangible capital infrastructure need are not included. 
Non-capital needs include operational and maintenance costs, water rights or fee payments, 
conducting studies, computer software for routine operations, and employee wages and 
other administrative costs. ' 


included, and that all needs be adequat 



M ^ - -y—m —^ 

'■ A:. 

Jim McRight, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

Construction of a pump station at the Neuse Regional Water and Sewer 
Authority in Kinston, North Carolina. This project was identified in the 
2003 Assessment and partially funded by the DWSRF. 


45 







2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Projects Must Be Eligible for DWSRF Funding 

Projects ineligible for DWSRF funding are identified in the DWSRF regulation and 
include: 

• Dams or the rehabilitation of dams. 

• Water rights. 

• Raw water reservoirs or rehabilitation of reservoirs (except for finished water 
reservoirs and reservoirs that are part of the treatment process and are on the 
property where the treatment facility is located). 

• Projects needed primarily for fire protection. 

• Projects needed primarily to serve future population growth. (Projects needed to 
address a deficiency affecting current users must be sized only to accommodate a 
reasonable amount of population growth expected to occur over the useful life of 
the facility.) 

Projects Must Be in Furtherance of the Public Health Goals of the SDWA 

Projects that are driven by objectives, not based on public health protection and the goals of 
the SDWA, are not included in the survey. These needs can include projects for improving 
appearances, infrastructure demolition, buildings and parking facilities not essential 
to providing safe drinking water, acquisition of land for an unallowable project, and 
infrastructure needed to extend service to homes that currently have an adequate drinking 
water supply. 

Projects Must Fail Within the 20-Year Period of the Assessment 

Projects for which construction began prior to January 1, 2007, and projects that are not 
needed until after December 31, 2026, fell outside the time frame for the Assessment and 
were not included. 

Projects Must Be Adequately Documented 

Project documentation is a critical piece of the Assessment’s credibility and fairness to states. 
It is described in more detail later in this Appendix. 

Other Unallowable Needs 

Besides the project criteria discussed above, other limitations established by the workgroup 
were: 

• Infrastructure needs that occur more than once during the 20-year survey period 
could be listed only once on the survey. 

• Multiple projects meeting the same need, such as rehabilitating a tank and later 
replacing the same tank, could not all be included. 


46 



Appendix C - Policies 


• Projects for compliance with specific proposed or recently promulgated regulations 
were not accepted from water systems. These costs were instead estimated and 
added to the national total by EPA directly. 

• Projects driven solely by a non-water-related issue such as a highway relocation 
were not included. 

• Projects to acquire existing infrastructure were not considered capital infrastructure 
costs. 

• Most vehicles and tools were considered operation and maintenance costs. 

• Projects that are not the responsibility of the public water system, such as 
homeowners’ portions of service line replacements, were not included. 

If projects associated with an unallowable need were submitted, they were excluded from 
the Assessment by EPA. EPA understands that these projects often represent legitimate and 
even critical needs that a water system must pursue to continue to provide service to its 
customers. However, because they do not meet the allowability criteria they are not the 
subject of the DWINSA. 


Documentation Requirements 

EPA and the workgroup implemented improvements for the 2007 Assessment based on 
the lessons learned in the 2003 Assessment. Revisions to the DWINSA approach primarily 
centered on the documentation requirements for certain types of projects and were driven 
by the desire to ensure a consistent approach to data collection and to the assessment of need 
applied by each state. 


High-quality documentation is required to justify the 
need for a project, defend cost estimates provided by 
the water system, provide a defensible assessment of 
national need, and ensure fair allotment of DWSRF 
monies. The documentation of need and cost for 
each project was carefully reviewed to ensure that the 
criteria set in the DWINSA approach and established 
by consensus of EPA and the workgroup were met. 



Photo by Jenna Wang 


A clamp used to repair a water main break. 


47 




2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Types of Documentation 

In an effort to ensure more consistency in each state’s approach to the assessment of its water 
systems’ needs, the workgroup defined for the 2007 Assessment three types of documentation 
that could be provided to describe a need or provide a cost: 

• Independent Documentation. A document or report generated through a process 
independent of the Assessment. Because these documents were not generated 
specifically for the Assessment, it is assumed that there is no intentional bias of 
over reporting of need. 

• Survey-generated Documentation. A statement or document discussing the need 
for a project generated specifically for the Assessment by the system or the state. 

• Combination Documentation. A combination of independent and survey¬ 
generated documentation to justify project need or cost. Independent 
documentation does not always directly address the reason a project is being 
pursued by a system and therefore may not establish allowability criteria. Systems 
often added survey-generated documentation to independent documents to clarify 
the need for the project. 

Documentation of Need 

Documentation of need explains the scope of the project, explains why the project is needed, 
and gives an indication of the public health need that would be addressed by the project. In 
order for the project to be accepted, the documentation of need must: 

• Provide sufficient information for EPA to review the allowability of the project. 

• Provide adequate data to check the accuracy of the data entered on the 
questionnaire. 

• Be dated and be less than 4 years old. 

One of the primary changes in approach from the 2003 Assessment was that EPA and 
the DWINSA workgroup defined the type of documentation required for each specific 
project type. These minimum requirements were set to allow a minor level of effort by states 
and water systems to document straight-forward projects. Doing so made more resources 
available to identify and document projects in which allowability was more questionable. 
Projects fell into the following levels of documentation requirements: 

• Projects that required independent documentation of 
need. 

• Projects for which survey-generated documentation 
was permitted but to which a weight-of-evidence 
review was applied. 

• Projects accepted with any forms of documentation. 


Weight of Evidence 

Documentation must include adequate system- 
specific and project-specific details to verify that the 
project meets the allowability criteria and to Justify 
that the project is needed. Reviewers weighed the 
evidence provided to determine if the submitted 
project met the criteria. 


48 





Appendix C - Policies 


The level of documentation required depended on the type of project and whether the 
project was for new infrastructure or for the replacement, rehabilitation, or expansion/ 
upgrade of existing infrastructure. Any of the three forms of documentation were acceptable 
for projects to rehabilitate or replace infrastructure assumed to have a life-cycle of 20 years 
or less. 


Projects likely to be driven by a need that is not DWSRF-eligible (such as to accommodate 
growth or meet fire suppression needs) generally required independent documentation. Most 
projects for the installation of new infrastructure fell into this category. For those projects, 
such as the construction of a new treatment system or new storage tank, the independent 
documentation was reviewed and EPA applied a “weight-of-evidence” approach to determine 
whether the project could be included in the Assessment. 


Projects for Which Independent Documentation was Required 


• Sources - installation of a new surface water source or new 
aquifer storage and recovery wells. 

• Treatment - installation, replacement, or expansion/upgrade 
of a complete treatment plant. 

• Pipe - rehabilitation or replacement of a substantial portion 
of the systems water mains (in excess of 10 percent of the 
total system based on a rate of 0.5 percent annually). 

Projects for Which Survey-Generated Documentation 
was Aiiowed, but a Weight of Evidence Review was 
Appiied 

Needs that were subject to a weight-of-evidence review included 
projects that were significant in scope or that may be for unallowable 
need (such as anticipated growth), but are not necessarily likely to be 
included in a planning document. For these projects, systems were asked 
to provide enough information for the reviewer to ascertain whether 
the project was for an allowable need. These projects included: 



Generally, projects that required independent documentation of need were likely to 
be unallowable needs (such as projects to meet anticipated growth) or for infrastructure 
likely to have an expected life of more than 20 years (such as a water 
main). EPA and the workgroup assumed that systems pursuing needs 
in this category are often in the process of formal planning and 
therefore independent documents are likely to exist. Projects requiring 
independent documentation included: 


Montana Department of Environmental Quality 
Corrosion on a wellhead indicates well rehabilitation 
may be necessary in the near future. 


• Sources - construction of new wells or springs and replacement or rehabilitation of 
any source. 


49 








2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


• Treatment - installation of a new ultraviolet (UV) treatment or membrane 
filtration system (for projects not solely for compliance with the Long Term 2 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule). 

• Storage — construction or replacement of a finished water storage tank. 

• Pipe — installation of new water mains and any new water main appurtenances 
such as valves and hydrants. 

• Security - motion detector, in-line monitoring devices, or other sophisticated 
security system components. 

Projects for Which All Forms of Documentation Were Accepted 

Projects for infrastructure that is generally expected to require rehabilitation or replacement 
within a 20-year period were accepted with minimum documentation of need. Survey¬ 
generated documentation was sufficient for these projects, which included: 


• Sources — installation, replacement or rehabilitation of well pumps, raw water 
pumps, and other miscellaneous source projects. 

• Treatment — rehabilitation of a complete treatment plant or installation of any 
treatment system components (other than new UV and new membrane filtration). 

• Storage - rehabilitation of any finished water storage tank, cover of finished water 
storage tank, and installation of hydropneumatic tanks and cisterns. 


• Pumping - installation, replacement, 
or rehabilitation of any pump or pump 
station. 

• Pipe — rehabilitation or replacement of 
water mains up to 10 percent of the system’s 
total pipe inventory. 

• Other infrastructure such as replacement 
of lead service lines and installation of 
control valves, backflow prevention, meters, 
controls, and emergency power. 

Documentation of Cost 

To estimate a 20-year national and individual state 
need, every project must have an estimated cost. 
There were two primary methods for assigning costs 
to a project: 

• Systems provided an independent cost 
estimate. 



Sarah Hudson, Indiana DWSRF 


Elevated storage tank in Greensburg, 
Indiana. 


50 




Appendix C - Policies 


• Systems provided adequate information for EPA to estimate a cost using a cost 
model. 

For systems that provided a cost estimate, the documentation must: 

• Include the date the estimate was derived. 

• Be generated through a process independent of the Assessment. 

• Be no more than 10 years old (earlier than January 1, 1997). 

• Not include loan origination fees, finance charges, bond issuance fees or costs, 
interest payments on a loan, or inflationary multipliers for future projects. 

Since projects with adequately documented costs were the basis of the cost models, systems 
were encouraged to provide both cost and design parameters for as many projects as possible 
so that the data could be used to build new cost models. 

If a cost was not provided, key information on design parameters and project type was 
required for EPA to assign a cost to the project using a cost model. However, EPA was 
unable to model a few types of infrastructure projects (e.g., projects that were too unique or 
site-specific). In those cases, a documented cost estimate was required in order for the cost 
to be included in the Assessment. 

As with previous Assessments, EPA will publish a document detailing the costs models 
developed and used in the 2007 Assessment. The publication should be available by mid- 
2009. 


51 



V 




i; 


; 2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 

• ** . • SAb 

'*'* 4. V-. 




Ji 


'1 


>■ ■- 


f. 





rf 1 

h-' 


'r'-\ - ' 

■“ 'S Vt'V--4 






.■< »? 




^4 




i 

..I 




j*'' 


??■ ♦ 


k i- 


ki 




f * 

p . r 


irv * s'. 


> , 


cv 


•nT 


J*- 


' i ’ ■ 

» • - 

*«. ,• :n 


% > 


i ^4 

t- ^ 

? i‘^' 


■». 4 


Vi.'' 


.L..V- ■■• , 1 


. 


%u 


?%■ 


fr 


fc> . [ ^ 

Si ■ ■, ^4 ... i.» 

P- ;■• 






■rHi y?*;'' 

ii'«^ _ V - 




i . 


p> 


’ r-- 


ifS* 


4>qi 


't 


v'* r 


5 




i73 


►a 


. ‘-T 


■ J ' 




















Appendix D - Accuracy, Precision, and 
Uncertainty 


Uncertainty, precision, and bias affect the accuracy of an 
estimate based on a statistical sample. While a sample 
can be designed to meet certain precision targets, 
other sources of uncertainty and potential biases may 
diminish the accuracy of estimates. 

Uncertainty 

There are two types of uncertainty at play in the 
DWINSA. Real uncertainties are created as survey 
respondents predict future needs. EPA is asking 
systems not only to provide their existing needs, but 
also to anticipate what their future needs will be. It is 
difficult to predict future needs. Since no one knows, 
for example, when a pump will fail or exactly what 
it will cost to fix or replace it when it does fail, there 
is real uncertainty about the accuracy of estimates of 
future investment needs. 

A second source of uncertainty is the use of a probability sample to estimate need. 
Uncertainties are created due to the inherent limitations of statistical analyses. The use of a 
random sample and cost models create such stochastic (i.e., random or arising from chance) 
uncertainties in the survey. In assessing the impact that the sample has on the estimate, EPA 
distinguishes between two sources of stochastic uncertainty: precision and bias. 

Precision 

Precision is the degree to which additional measures would produce the same or similar 
results. Two factors affect the precision of sample-based estimates. First is the inherent 
variability of the data. If systems’ needs are similar, the margin of error will be smaller than if 
needs vary greatly across systems. The second factor is the size of the sample. Larger samples 
produce more precise estimates than smaller ones. 

The use of a random sample introduces uncertainty in the estimate. A different sample would 
lead to a different estimate of each states need, since there will always be some variability 
among different systems selected in a sample. Because the DWINSA relies on a random 
sample, the sample should provide an unbiased estimate of the total need. The level of 
confidence in the estimate is reflected in the confidence interval. 

EPA’s goal is to be 95 percent confident that the margin of error for the survey is +/- 10 
percent of the total need for systems serving more than 3,300 persons for each fully surveyed 



EPA Region 9 


A 300,000 gallon storage tank and pumping facility at a water system in 
Arizona. 































2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


state, assuming that the data provided are unbiased. (The estimates for individual partially 
surveyed states do not meet these precision targets. DWINSA also has separate precision 
targets for systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons.) 

If the systems that responded to the survey reported the cost of their investment needs for 
all projects, sampling error would be the only stochastic source of uncertainty. But systems 
do not have cost estimates for most of the projects they reported. EPA imputed the cost of 
these projects using cost models based on cost estimates submitted for other projects. As 
with sampling, there is a degree of predictable error associated with such modeling. 

Bias 

Sampling error is random. It is as likely to lead to an estimate that is greater than the true 
value as it is lower than the true value. Bias, however, is not random. An estimator is biased 
if its expected value is different from the true value. An estimator is upwardly biased if it 
consistently leads to an estimate that is greater than the true value. It is downwardly biased 
if it consistently leads to an estimate that is less than the true value. The DWINSA has both 
upwards and downward biases. EPA implemented policies and procedures to mitigate the 
impact of these biases. 

Downward bias 

Past DWINSAs and studies of these Assessments have shown that systems are likely to 
underestimate their needs. There is little theory or empirical evidence to suggest that systems 
overstate their needs. This understatement is brought on for two primary reasons. One 
is that the bulk of a systems infrastructure is underground in the form of transmission 
and distribution mains. It is difficult to assess the need for addressing these out-of-sight 
assets. The second is that the survey assesses systems’ 20-year need. Many systems have not 
undertaken the long-term planning necessary to identify future infrastructure needs. 

Upward bias 

In part to help address the downward bias introduced 
by systems’ underestimating their needs, EPA enlisted 
the help of states in the data collection effort. However, 
because states are the recipients of the capitalization 
grants determined by the Assessment, there is an 
incentive for states to overestimate their systems’ needs. 
This situation introduces a possible upward bias in the 
estimate of the needs generated by systems with state 
input. 

This bias likely does not apply to the DWINSA estimate 
of small system need. The small system survey is 
conducted by EPA, without states’ direct involvement. 



54 






Appendix D - Accuracy, Precision, and Uncertainty 


For this reason, there is no upward bias in this portion of the survey. In addition, because 
small system surveys are conducted by trained professionals, EPA expects very little downward 
bias. 

Approximately 25 states and territories and the District of Columbia have needs of less 
than 1 percent of the national need. These states receive the minimum DWSRF allocation 
regardless of the need reported (1 percent for states, Puerto Rico, and the District of 
Columbia; 0.33 percent for U.S. Territories). For this reason, there is likely no upward bias 
in the allocation for these states, and only the downward bias discussed above influences 
need in these states. 

With input from states as well as a peer-review process, EPA implemented policies to help 
address both upward and downward bias. These policies included; 

• Projects to rehabilitate or replace infrastructure generally considered.in need of 
attention within a 20-year period were allowed based on system- or state-signed 
statements and project descriptions. States encouraged systems to consider their 
entire inventory and document all such needs if legitimate. 

• Projects to rehabilitate or replace infrastructure not necessarily considered in 
need of attention within a 20-year period were allowed with documentation 
independent of the Assessment or a system or states statement if it included 
additional project-specific information such as an assessment of age, current 
condition, and maintenance history. 

• Projects that include the installation/construction of new infrastructure generally 
received a high degree of scrutiny to ensure that they met allowability criteria 

• Some infrastructure was only allowed if independent documentation was provided. 
They included new surface water sources, new treatment plants, the replacement 
or expansion of an existing treatment plant, and widespread replacement or 
rehabilitation of the distribution system (defined as more than 10 percent of the 
existing pipe inventory). 


55 





2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 





Appendix E - Summary of Findings for 
Systems Serving 10,000 and Fewer 
Persons 


Community Water Systems Serving 10,000 People and Fewer 

The SDWA requires that states use at least 15 percent of their DWSRF funding for financial 
assistance to community water systems (CWS) serving populations of 10,000 and fewer. 
The Assessment shows that the vast proportion of needs, $320.1 billion of the total national 
needs of $334.8 billion, are for CWSs. The not-for-profit noncommunity water systems 
make up the much smaller portion of the total needs. Of the $320.1 billion, CWSs serving 
10,000 and fewer persons represent 31.2 percent or approximately $100 billion of needs 
(includes CWSs in U.S. Territories). Exhibit E. 1 presents the 20-year needs for these smaller 
community systems by state and project type. It also compares the reported need of these 
systems to the state s total community water system need. All data in Exhibit E. 1 exclude 
needs related to not-for-profit noncommunity water systems. 




2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


xhibit E.l: 2007 State Need Reported by Project Type for CWSs Serving a Population of 10,000 
nd Fewer (20-year need in millions of 2007 dollars) 


CWSs Serving 10,000 or Fewer People 

% of CWS 
Need Related 


Total ^o- Total 20- to Systems 

State Year Need of Serving 



Transmission/ 

Distribution 

Source 

Treatment 

Storage 

Other 

CWS Serving 
10,000 
or Fewer 
People.* 

All CWS* 

10,000 
or Fewer 
Persons.* 

Alabama 

$1,022.1 

$38.0 

$100.7 

$110.4 

$3.6 

$1,274.7 

$4,095.6 

31.1% 

Alaska 

$382.5 

$42.8 

$106.4 

$99.3 

$6.0 

$637.0 

$751.3 

84.8% 

Arizona 

$695.2 

$124.5 

$305.9 

$217.8 

$8.7 

$1,352.0 

$7,392.1 

18.3% 

Arkansas 

$1,740.7 

$107.2 

$364.6 

$255.7 

$9.4 

$2,477.7 

$5,271.2 

47.0% 

California 

$3,383.5 

$521.7 

$839.4 

$791.7 

$74.6 

$5,610.9 

$38,944.9 

14.4% 

Colorado 

$958.1 

$177.3 

$562.4 

$247.7 

$12.5 

$1,958.0 

$6,398.8 

30.6% 

Connecticut 

$367.9 

$103.2 

$108.9 

$87.3 

$8.1 

$675.4 

$1,366.5 

49.4% 

District of 
Columbia 

$0.0 

$0.0 

$0.0 

$0.0 

$0.0 

$0.0 

$874.2 

0.0% 

Florida 

$1,802.7 

$218.9 

$335.3 

$332.6 

$34.4 

$2,723.7 

$12,695.5 

21.5% 

Georgia 

$1,486.6 

$202.5 

$402.8 

$288.6 

$29.5 

$2,410.0 

$8,924.0 

27.0% 

Illinois 

$2,880.2 

$283.1 

$920.7 

$650.6 

$32.3 

$4,766.8 

$14,907.0 

32.0% 

Indiana 

$1,570.9 

$124.7 

$310.1 

$259.0 

$12.3 

$2,277.1 

$5,768.1 

39.5% 

Iowa 

$1,159.8 

$173.0 

$476.8 

$279.9 

$14.9 

$2,104.4 

$6,094.7 

34.5% 

Kansas 

$1,663.1 

$130.4 

$378.9 

$246.4 

$12.2 

$2,430.9 

$4,026.7 

60.4% 

Kentucky 

$952.4 

$40.2 

$154.5 

$161.5 

$9.4 

$1,318.0 

$4,977.0 

26.5% 

Louisiana 

$1,546.1 

$161.9 

$358.6 

$269.4 

$24.5 

$2,360.5 

$6,885.2 

34.3% 

Maryland 

$390.4 

$77.1 

$152.8 

$125.0 

$15.9 

$761.3 

$5,345.2 

14.2% 

Massachusetts 

$799.2 

$114.6 

$166.5 

$207.6 

$8.2 

$1,296.1 

$6,757.1 

19.2% 

Michigan 

$1,921.8 

$302.8 

$754.1 

$392.2 

$33.0 

$3,403.8 

$11,370.6 

29.9% 

Minnesota 

$1,241.1 

$174.6 

$605.7 

$318.0 

$14.5 

$2,353.9 

$5,720.1 

41.2% 

Mississippi 

$1,283.4 

$186.0 

$515.7 

$332.9 

$14.1 

$2,332.1 

$3,233.7 

72.1% 

Missouri 

$2,811.5 

$216.3 

$479.9 

$400.8 

$21.3 

$3,929.9 

$7,046.5 

55.8% 

Nebraska 

$616.6 

$93.7 

$165.4 

$253.0 

$7.5 

$1,136.1 

$1,760.6 

64.5% 

Nevada 

$232.6 

$33.9 

$71.5 

$108.9 

$6.7 

$453.7 

$2,677.1 

16.9% 

New Jersey 

$672.3 

$87.2 

$222.9 

$195.8 

$6.3 

$1,184.5 

$7,758.1 

15.3% 


Excludes NPNCWS 


58 


















































Appendix E - Summary of Findings for Systems Serving 10,000 and Fewer Persons 


Exhibit E.l: 2007 State Need Reported by Project Type for CWSs Serving a Population of 10,000 
and Fewer (20-year need in millions of 2007 dollars), cont. 



CWSs Serving 10,000 or Fewer Peopie 



% of CWS 








Need 
Reiated t( 
Systems 
Serving 
10,000 
or Fewer 
Persons.’* 

Transmission/ 

Distribution 

Source 

Treatment 

Storage 

Other 

Totai 20- 
Year Need of 
CWS Serving 
10,000 
or Fewer 
Peopie.* 

Totai 20-Year 
Need of Aii 
CWS* 


New York 

$2,837.3 

$369.8 

$978.1 

$588.2 

$39.0 

$4,812.3 

$27,011.1 

17.8% 

North Carolina 

$1,776.3 

$233.5 

$416.3 

$395.0 

$28.4 

$2,849.5 

$9,685.5 

29.4% 

Ohio 

$2,196.2 

$191.3 

$739.1 

$406.7 

$31.2 

$3,564.5 

$12,316.8 

28.9% 

Oklahoma 

$1,580.1 

$121.4 

$421.6 

$301.7 

$13.2 

$2,437.9 

$4,089.8 

59.6% 

Oregon 

$697.2 

$110.0 

$268.0 

$182.3 

$15.1 

$1,272.5 

$2,729.8 

46.6% 

Pennsylvania 

$2,262.9 

$367.7 

$644.0 

$474.6 

$29.2 

$3,778.3 

$11,097.6 

34.0% 

Puerto Rico 

$370.1 

$42.2 

$181.5 

$104.9 

$11.3 

$710.1 

$2,536.3 

28.0% 

South Carolina 

$324.3 

$48.0 

$95.1 

$74.3 

$5.3 

$547.0 

$1,612.1 

33.9% 

Tennessee 

$1,185.8 

$62.4 

$200.5 

$164.1 

$8.4 

$1,621.2 

$3,518.8 

46.1% 

Texas 

$5,579.0 

$735.9 

$1,816.3 

$1,214.3 

$57.4 

$9,402.9 

$26,083.1 

36.0% 

Virginia 

$1,106.8 

$142.5 

$343.0 

$270.1 

$21.5 

$1,883.9 

$5,970.2 

31.6% 

Washington 

$2,009.8 

$409.5 

$682.9 

$581.9 

$57.4 

$3,741.5 

$9,640.0 

38.8% 

Wisconsin 

$1,193.0 

$168.1 

$459.3 

$290.7 

$14.5 

$2,125.6 

$5,702.6 

37.3% 

Partially 

Surveyed 

States^ 

$5,756.9 

$792.6 

$1,802.8 

$1,272.4 

$92.6 

$9,717.2 

$16,887.9 

57.5% 

Subtotal 

$60,456.5 

$7,530.2 

$17,909.0 

$12,953.0 

$844.3 

$99,693.0 

$319,923.3 

31.2% 

American 

Samoa 

$18.7 

$2.9 

$6.7 

$4.7 

$0.3 

$33.3 

$92.8 

35.9% 

Guam 

$12.5 

$0.0 

$8.5 

$11.6 

$0.0 

$32.6 

$263.9 

12.3% 

Commonwealth 
of the Northern 
Mariana 

Islands 

$100.1 

$19.9 

$24.7 

$33.1 

$2.9 

$180.6 

$289.3 

62.4% 

U.S. Virgin 

Islands 

$31.3 

$7.1 

$9.7 

$6.9 

$0.9 

$55.9 

$253.3 

22.1% 

Subtotal 

$162.5 

$29.8 

$49.6 

$56.3 

$4.1 

$302.4 

$899.4 

33.6% 

Total 

$60,619.0 

$7,560.1 

$17,958.6 

$13,009.3 

$848.4 

$99,995.4 

$320,822.6 

31.2% 


* Excludes NPNCWS 

t For the 2007 DWINSA the need for states that opt out of the medium system portion of the survey is presented cumulatively and not by state. The li 
of the 14 partially surveyed states can be seen in Exhibit 2.4. 


59 














































tv 


J 

2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 




> 


s 


V 


r 


h 


M 




60 










Glossary 


Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): a document produced by a local government, utility, 
or water system that thoroughly outlines, for a specified period of time, all needed capital 
projects, the reason for each project, and the projects’ costs. 

Coliform bacteria: a group of bacteria whose presence in a water sample indicates the water 
may contain disease-causing organisms. 

Community water system (CWS): a public water system that serves at least 15 connections 
used by year-round residents or that regularly serves at least 25 residents year-round. 
Examples include cities, towns, and communities such as retirement homes. 

Current infrastructure needs: new facilities or deficiencies in existing facilities identified 
by the state or system for which water systems would begin construction as soon as possible 
to avoid a threat to public health. 

Engineers report: a document produced by a professional engineer that outlines the need 
and cost for a specific infrastructure project. 

Existing regulations: drinking water regulations promulgated by EPA under the authority 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act; existing regulations can be found at Title 40 Part 141, the 
Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR l4l). 

Finished water: water that is considered safe to drink and suitable for delivery to 
customers. 

Future infrastructure needs: infrastructure deficiencies that a system expects to address in 
the next 20 years because of predictable deterioration of facilities. Future infrastructure needs 
do not include current infrastructure needs. Examples are storage facility and treatment 
plant replacement where the facility currently performs adequately but will reach the end 
of its useful life in the next 20 years. Needs solely to accommodate future growth are not 
included in the DWINSA. 

Ground water: any water obtained from a source beneath the surface of the ground, which 
has not been classified as ground water under the direct influence of surface water. 

Growth: The expansion of a water system to accommodate or entice future additional service 
connections or consumers. Needs planned solely to accommodate projected future growth 
are not included in the Assessment. Eligible projects, however, can be designed for growth 
expected during the design-life of the project. For example, the Assessment would allow a 
treatment plant needed now and expected to treat water for 20 years. Such a plant could be 
designed for the population anticipated to be served at the end of the 20-year period. 


61 





2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 


Infrastructure needs: the capital costs associated with ensuring the continued protection of 
public health through rehabilitating or constructing facilities needed for continued provision 
of safe drinking water. Categories of infrastructure need include source development and 
rehabilitation, treatment, storage, and transmission and distribution. Operation and 
maintenance needs are not considered infrastructure needs and are not included in this 
document. 

Large water system: in this document, this category comprises community water systems 
serving more than 100,000 persons. 

Medium water system: in this document, this category comprises community water systems 
serving from 3,301 to 100,000 persons. 

Microbiological contamination: the occurrence of protozoan, bacteriological, or viral 
contaminants in a water supply. 

Noncommunity water system: a public water system that is not a community water system 
and that serves a nonresidential population of at least 25 individuals daily for at least 60 
days of the year. Examples of not-for-profit noncommunity water systems include schools 
and churches. 

Public water system: a system that provides water to the public for human consumption 
through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least 15 service 
connections or regularly serves an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out 
of the year. 

Regulatory need: a capital expenditure required for compliance with Safe Drinking Water 
Act regulations. 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): a law passed by Congress in 1974 and amended in 1986 
and 1996 to ensure that public water systems provide safe drinking water to consumers (42 
U.S.C.A. §300fto 300j-26). 

Small water system: in this document, this category comprises community water systems 
serving up to 3,300 persons. 

Source rehabilitation and development: a category of need that includes the costs involved 
in developing or improving sources of water for public water systems. 

State: in this document, state refers to all 50 states of the United States plus Puerto Rico, the 
District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

Storage: a category of need that addresses finished water storage for public water systems. 


62 



Glossary 


Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA); an advanced control system that 
collects all system information and allows an operator, through user-friendly interfaces, to 
view all aspects of the system from one place. 

Surface water: all water that is open to the atmosphere and subject to surface run-off, 
including streams, rivers, and lakes. 

Transmission and distribution: a category of need that includes installation, replacement, 
or rehabilitation of transmission or distribution lines that carry drinking water from the 
source to the treatment plant or from the treatment plant to the consumer. 

Treatment: a category of need that includes conditioning water or removing microbiological 
or chemical contaminants. Filtration of surface water, pH adjustment, softening, and 
disinfection are examples of treatment. 

Watering point: a central source from which people who do not have piped water can 
obtain drinking water for transport to their homes. 


63 



2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 



Jim McRight, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

A view of a treatment plant and underground pipe gallery in North Carolina. 


64 








i.' iilk 




LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 


0 021 665 45315 






